High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.462 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.06.2025Coram:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.462 of 2023Prabakaran...AppellantVs.State of Tamilnadu rep by Inspector of Police,Thiruvennainallur Police StationVillupuram District ...RespondentCrime No.25 of 2019Prayer:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the proceedings in S.C.No.215 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram and set aside the order of conviction dated 15.12.2022 and set the appellant at liberty. For Appellant: Mr.M.DevarajFor Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public ProsecutorJ U D G M E N T This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.215 of 2020 dated 15.12.2022 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram thereby convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC and Page 1 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.10.2018 at about 1.00 p.m., the victim, who is the mentally challenged woman, was not present in her house, since she used to play in the river sand, which was kept near her house for new construction, the victim's father went to search her, he had seen that the accused was committing rape on the victim girl. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.25 of 2019 for offences under Sections 450 and 376(2)(I) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and taken cognizance in S.C.No.15 of 2020. 3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and marked exhibits Ex.Ps.1 to 13. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On a perusal of the entire documents, the trial court found the appellant guilty for offences under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt by any cogent evidence. According to Page 2 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023the prosecution, the alleged occurrence had taken place on 06.10.2018 and the victim was taken to the hospital only on 28.12.2018 and found that the victim was four months pregnant. Therefore, the alleged occurrence said to have been taken place on 06.10.2018 is highly doubtful. Further, even according to the prosecution, the victim is a mentally retarded person and as such, she was not in full state of mind to depose before the court. In fact, her deposition was recorded with the assistance of P.W.10, viz., Special Teacher. Therefore, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration and the prosecution failed to prove the charge as against the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the victim's deposition was recorded only based on the interpretation of P.W.10. However, the prosecution failed to prove the authenticity of P.W.10, as if the sign made by the victim discloses whatever recorded in the deposition is correct one, which shows that the victim was not capable of understanding anything. However, the prosecution also failed to prove as to collection of sample from the appellant to conduct DNA test of the foetus of the victim, therefore, the result of DNA test cannot be taken into consideration, as if the appellant is the biological father of the foetus. There is absolutely no evidence as to taking the samples from that of the appellant for DNA test and in the absence of the same, the findings of the trial Page 3 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023court based on the report that the appellant is the biological father of the foetus, cannot be taken into account. However, without considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court mechanically convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC, thereby pleaded to allow the present Appeal.6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim was examined as P.W.9 with the assistance of P.W.10, who is the special teacher to understand the sign of mentally retarded person and she categorically deposed the specific overt act of the appellant and thereby he committed rape on the victim. In fact, the appellant utilised the mentally retarded sign of the victim and he committed rape on her. Also, the trial court, examined as many as nineteen witnesses and the father of the victim, who is eye witness to the occurrence and thereafter, convicted the appellant, which does not warrant any interference from the hands of this Court, thereby pleaded to dismiss the petition.7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.8. It is relevant to point out that the father of the victim is the eyewitness to the occurrence and he categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, they Page 4 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023went to pooja for which he came to his house to bring the victim to the temple and he was shocked to see the victim was without dress and the accused was committing rape on her, after seeing the P.W.1, the accused flew away from the scene of occurrence. However, it was not complained to any body since the victim is a mentally retarded person and he also has another two daughters. If any complaint is lodged, it would affect the other daughters' marriage. However, after some period, victim suffered illness by vomiting, immediately, she was taken to hospital where it was found that the victim was pregnant. The same was informed to the police and FIR was registered. It is relevant to extract the portion of his evidence:- @M$h; vjphpia bjhpa[k;/ vd; kfs; nufh kdeyk; ghjpf;fg;gl;lth;/ ehd; Tiu tPl;oy; ,Ue;Jbfhz;oUe;njhk;/ kho tPL fl;Ltjw;F jahh; bra;Jbfhz;oUe;njhk;/ kzy; rypf;Fk; ,lj;jpw;F vd; kfs; tUthh;/ Rkhh; 2 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ xU ehs; g[ul;lhrp khjk; 3k; rdpf;fpHik md;W rhkp Fk;gpl;Ltpl;L rhg;gpLtjw;fhf giHa tPl;lhz;lh ,Ue;J vd; kfis Tl;o tUtjw;fhf ehd; nghndd;/ mg;nghJ vd; kfs; nufh mk;kzf;fl;ilahf ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; ghh;j;Jtpl;L jiyapy; moj;Jf;bfhz;L rj;jk; nghl;lnghJ vjphp Jzpfis RUl;obfhz;L xotpl;lhh;/ v';fSf;F Kd;W kfs;fs; ,Ug;gjhy; mth;fSf;F jpUkzk; elf;fntz;Lk; vd;W mrp';fg;gl;Lf;bfhz;L g[fhh; bfhLf;fhky; ,Ue;Jtpl;nlhk;/ mjd;gpwF vdJ kfSf;F cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; Mfptpl;lJ/ the;jp vLj;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jjhy; mUfpYs;s kUj;Jtkidf;F brd;W ghh;j;njhk;/ m';F fh;g;gkhf ,Uf;fpwJ. VJk; v';fshy; bra;a KoahJ vd;W Twpajhy;. Kz;oak;ghf;fk; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;J brd;nwhk;/ m';F ngha; kUj;Jthplk; ghh;j;jnghJ nghyp!; tuntz;Lk; eh';fs; vJt[k; bra;a KoahJ vd;W Twptpl;lhh;fs;/ mjd;gpwF nghyPrplk; brhy;yp mjw;F eh';fs; rk;kjpj;J kUj;Jt ghpnrhjidf;F mDg;gp itj;njhk;@/Page 5 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023thus it is clear that the appellant had committed rape on the victim and it is clearly proved by the prosecution. The victim was examined as P.W.9 and the trial court recorded her evidence with the assistance of P.W.10, since she is a mentally retarded person. Further, the victim is capable to understand the question and she can answer by using sign language, therefore, with the help of P.W.10, the trial court recorded the evidence of the victim. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the accused committed rape on her. It is pertinent to extract the portion of the evidence of the victim girl:-“cd; bgah; vd;d vd;why; nufh vd;gij g[hpa[k; mstpw;F mtuJ bkhHpapy; brhy;fpwhh;/ vdf;F mf;fh. mz;zd; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W Ck;k; vd;W mtuJ ghzpapy; brhy;fpwhh;/ m';F epw;Fk; mz;zid bjhpa[kh vd;W vjphpia fhl;o nfl;Fk;nghJ mth; bjhpa[k; vd;W <Lghl;Lld; jdJ khh;gf';fisa[k; bjhl;L fhz;gpj;J brhy;fpwhh;/ rhl;rp jdJ ,U khh;gf';fisa[k;/ jdpg;gl;l kh;k gFjpia bjhl;L fhz;gpj;Jk;. fGj;ij ,Wf;fpa[k;. vjphp jd; fGj;ij ,Wf;fpajhf irif fhz;gpj;Jk;. mg;go bra;a[k;nghJ ehd; mGnjd; vd;Wk;. C. C vd;W mGjjhf rhl;rp brhy;fpwhh;/ jdpg;gl;l cWg;gpid bjhl;L fhz;gpj;J jd;Dila ghypay;hPjpahd cwt[ Fwpj;J irif fhz;gpf;fpwhh;/ M$h; vjphp jhd; mt;thW bra;jjhf nfl;Fk; nfs;tpw;F Ck; vd;W Mnkhjpf;fpwhh;/@thus it is clear that the victim was raped by the accused and the identity of the accused was clearly identified by the victim. 9. Besides the above, P.W.10 also clearly explained about the sign of mentally retarded person and as such, there is no material to disbelieve the evidence of victim. In fact, the victim's evidence is best evidence to convict the Page 6 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023accused and the same is clearly corroborated by the P.W.1, who is the eye witness to the occurrence. 10. That apart, the sample from the foetus was taken for DNA test. The blood samples were taken from the accused and subjected it for DNA test. The DNA result prove that the appellant is a biological father of the foetus. The DNA report was marked as Ex.P.10. A perusal of Ex.P.10 reveals that cumulative probability of paternity of the appellant of being father of the foetus is found to be 99%. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charge under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC and the trial court rightly convicted the appellant and hence the present Criminal Appeal fails.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 20.06.2025Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / NoSpeaking Order / Non Speaking OrderssdPage 7 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram2. State of Tamilnadu rep by Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station Villupuram District 3. The Public Prosecutor, High court, MadrasPage 8 / 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.462 of 2023 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J. ssd Crl.A.No.462 of 202320.06.2025Page 9 / 9