Kattaiyan Rajangam vs State

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This revision has been preferred by the petitioner Kattaiyan O. Rajangam, against the judgment in S.C. No. 64

of 83 on the file of the Dist. Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 376 I.P.C. and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and R.I. for 7 years respectively which was confirmed by the appellate Court in

C.A. No. 71/89 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tanjore.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Public Prosecutor were heard.

The prosecution case is as follows :- On 17-8-1987, at 12:30 p.m., at Thepperumanallur, this revision petitioner way laid P.W. 3

Krishnamoorthy and raped her at the backyard of the house of P.W. 3. P.W. 1 Visalakshi was residing alongwith her parents at

Thepperumanallur. She was also a student taking training in Sri Devi Technical Institute in Tirunageswaram. She used to go to Tirunageswaram,

attend classes and come back home. On 17-8-87, while she was returning home from the Typewriting Institute, on the way, this petitioner near

house of P.W. 3 Krishnamoorthy at the field behind his house way-laid her, put a cloth piece on her mouth, caught hold of her neck and took her

near the kottagai there and made her to lie down. Thereafter, in spite of her resistance he raped her. Then, P.W. 1 with great difficulty escaped

from the grip of the petitioner and began to run. The petitioner chased her and pushed her in the field and again attempted to rape her. She

escaped and again ran. But, the petitioner again chased her, pulled her thavani and forcibly brought her to a tree and again raped her. This

occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. On seeing P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. There after

P.W. 1 walked upto the house of P.W. 4 Rajalakshmi and requested her to give water. Before P.W. 2 brings the water, P.W. 1 got fainted and

fell down. Then, P.W. 1 went and informed and P.W. 10 mother of P.W. 1 and brought her to her house and then both of them took P.W. 1 to

the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was not able to talk for some minutes. Later, P.W. 1 narrated the incident to P.W. 10 then informed this to her

husband. After knowing all these things, they were about to start for going to the police Station for giving complaint and at that time, this petitioner

came there with aruval and threatened that if they go and give complaint, her would kill the entire family. Out of this they got frightened and did not

go to the Police Station. Then they on 20-8-87, P.W. 1, P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 father went to Thiruvidai marudur Police Station P.W. 1 filed Ex.

P1 complaint. On that basis P.W. 13 Kalivamoorthy, Sub-Inspector registered a case in crime No. 212/87 u/s 341, 323, and 376 of IPC. Then

the Sub-Inspector recovered M.O. 1 Pavadai, M.O. 2 in skirt and sent them to the Court. Then he went to the occurrence place and there

prepared observation Mahazar Ex. P2 attested by P.W. 5. In the meantime, P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital for medical examination. On 20-8-

87, at about 10:45 p.m. P.W. 6 examined her and found six injuries and issued certificate Ex. P. 3. Though the doctor says that no injuries seen on

chest, thighs and even in her private part, according to doctor P.W. 6 hymen was ruptured. P.W. 7 doctor Gopalkrishnan examined the accused

and gave certificate Ex. P5 stating that he is a capable to have intercourse with a girl. Then all the M.Os. were sent for chemical analysis and the

chemical analyst''s report and the Serolligists''s report were received. According to P.W. 9 Manickavasagam, teacher working in the school in

which the victim studied has given the date of birth of the victim P.W. 1, as 2-7-70, P.W. 11, another doctor, on 25-6-88 examined the victim for

finding out her age. She gave information that she must have completed age of 18 on the date of examination i.e. 25-6-88. Her certificate is Ex. P.

P.W. 12 examined P.W. 1 and took X-rays M.Os. 3 to 6. According to those X-ray he issued a certificate Ex. P. 13. There based on the X-

rays it is stated that the victim must have completed 18 and she is in between 18 and 20. P.W. 13 arrested the accused on 23-3-87. The further

investigation was taken up by P.W. 14 inspector. After completing the investigation. P.W. 14 filed a charge sheet on 30-3-88 u/s 341 and 376 of

IPC before the 2nd Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam.

After the conclusion of the trial, when the petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances brought on

record again him, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime.

On appreciation of entire evidence, learned Asst. Sessions Judge, West Tanjore has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated earlier and

the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. Canvassing the propriety and legality of the said concurrent findings, the present revision

is being filed as aforesaid.

Mr. D. Gubendra Gunabalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has meticulously read out the entire evidence on record and pointed

out the various contradictions found in the evidence adduced by the witnesses and strenuously contended that the prosecution failed to prove the

case, beyond reasonable doubt and the verdicts given by the Courts below were not on the proper appreciation of the materials available on

record.

I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, who countered his submissions, by pointing out the various portions of

the evidence and the Judgments of Courts below to confirm the conviction and sentence.

The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and P.W. 1 who

belongs to brahmin community has been set up to make out a false case against the petitioner, who belongs to a different community. P.Ws. 2 and

3 are the eye-witnesses in this case. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are cogent and convincing. Moreover, P.Ws. 2 and 3 belong to the same

community to which the petitioner also belongs. There is no reason whatever for P.Ws. 2 and 3 to speak falsehood against the petitioner.

P.W. 1 Visalatchi, after finishing her Xth Standard has started attending type institutes in Sridevi Type Institute at Thirunageswaram. When she

was on the way back to home, on the date of occurrence, she was waylaid by the petitioner and raped in the backyard of the house of P.W. 3

Krishnamurthi. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have deposed all the gamut of the facts in detail implicating the petitioner. After the incident was over, P.W. 1/victim

went to the house of P.W. 2 and requested water. Then she fell fainted. P.W. 4 Rajlakshmi, sprinkled water on her face and made her to gain

conscious and then she informed P.W. 10, the mother of the victim. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 corroborates with each other, which clinchingly

proved the commission of the crime by the petitioner.

The ocular version of P.Ws. 1 to 4 has been aptly corroborated by P.W. 6 Doctor Chellammal, who found rupture on hymen and six injuries

allover her body as per Ex. P3 wound certificate. P.W. 6 also opined that these injuries must have been caused while the victim showed her

resistance while she was raped. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there was no injury on the private part of the victim. This

submission does not impress upon me, since P.W. 6, Doctor has stated that there was a rupture of hymen.

Though the petitioner''s counsel read out the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, he was not able to point out any material, which has been culled

out in the course of cross-examination, so as to discredit their testimony. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 10 fully corroborates the evidence of other

witnesses.

Of course, though the occurrence took place at 12:30 noon on 17-3-1987, the complaint was given with some delay. But the delay has been

properly explained by P.Ws. 4 and 10 and the same has been accepted by the trial Court as well by the lower appellate Court. In the light of the

above materials, it is fairly apparent that the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 10, which is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 6

Doctor would clearly reveal that the petitioner alone has committed the offences as charged against him.

Here is the case, wherein the victim, a student in the typing institute has been waylaid in a broad day light, ceased and raped twice in the

presence of the witnesses. Further more, when P.W. 10, the mother of the victim was about to start to police station from her house, the petitioner

again came there and threatened her that she should not go to police station otherwise her entire family would be murdered. This is one of the

reasons for not giving the complaint in time. Invariably there would be delay in rape cases, because, the victim as well as the relatives, before

rushing to the police station would think twice, since the future of the victim is involved. In this case, apart from this aspect, there was also an

incident of threat of death by the petitioner as referred earlier. So, I find no illegality in the conclusion and the finding arrived at by the trial Court as

well as by the lower appellate Court.

As far as the sentence is concerned, I am of the view, that S.I. for one month and R.I. for seven years for the offences under Sections 341 and

376 I.P.C. respectively cannot so said to be excessive, in the light of the facts discussed above. Section 376(1) I.P.C. contemplates that whoever,

except in the the cases provided for by sub-section (2) commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which

shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso

to the said Sections says that the Court may, for adequate and Special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment, imposed a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. There is requirement or adequate and special reasons for deduction of the sentence from the

minimum sentence of seven years. In this case, no adequate and special; reason, as contemplated in proviso to Section 376(1) I.P.C. has been

brought to my notice.

One of the most heinous crimes in the society is rape, due to which not only the body of the victim, but also the entire future is being damaged.

In the light of the above circumstances, the Legislature thought it fit to impose the minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, which also

may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore, in my opinion, the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court and

confirmed by the lower appellate Court is correct and valid in law. I do not find any wrong either in the finding or in the award of sentence as

referred in the Judgments of the Courts below, in view of the discussions made above.

As the revision has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.