IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 02.09.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN Crl. A. No.349 of 2010 Sivakumar ... Appellant/Accused ..Vs.. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station. (Cr.no.496/04) ... Respondent/Complainant Appeal filed against the judgment dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C. No.96 of 2006. For Appellant : Mr. K.V. Sridharan For Respondent : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C. No.96 of 2006, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus: (i) P.W.1 is the father of the victim Vijayalakshmi, who died in the incident that had taken place on 21.8.2004 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.3. P.W.1 was running a tea stall, which was situated just opposite to the temple. On the date of occurrence that was on 21.8.2004, Saturday, a holiday to the school, Vijayalakshmi, aged 5 years was playing in front of the shop. When it was 2 O' Clock, P.W.2 asked her to go to her house to take food and accordingly, she went to the house. P.W.1 gave her one rupee to buy ear bud nearby shop, but she did not come till 3 O' Clock. He entertained suspicion and hence he asked P.W.2 to go and see her in the house, but she did not come to the home. (ii) When P.W.2 was making a search, P.W.5, who was coming around the temple, found inside the temple premises a body of the child. Immediately he informed the same to P.W.10 Astrologer, who was sitting in front of the temple. Immediately, he informed the same to the auto driver P.W.4 and all of them went inside the temple and having found the dead body of the child, they informed the same to P.W.2. (iii) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent-police and gave a complaint Ex.P1 at 6.30 p.m., on the strength of which, a case in Crime No.496 of 2004 was registered for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Ex.P16 First Information Report was despatched to the Court. (iv) P.W.20 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the First Information Report, took up investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P4 and also rough sketch Ex.P17 and also he recovered M.Os.4 to 6 viz. blood stained earth, ordinary earth and one rupee coin from the place of occurrence. He also interrogated the witnesses and recorded their evidence. (v) P.W.7 Doctor medically examined the child and declared her death and the said Certificate was marked as Ex.P3. P.W.20 conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and prepared inquest report Ex.P18. P.W.16 Doctor, on receipt of requisition, conducted autopsy on the body of the child and issued the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P13 and final opinion Ex.P19, where he opined that the child would appear to have died of vaso vagal shock due to vaginal lacertaion. (vi) Pending investigation, the accused appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer P.W.18 and gave confession statement and the same was recorded. Ex.P14 is the statement recorded by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the accused was produced by P.W.18 and the Investigator also interrogated him and recorded the confession statement given by the accused voluntarily and Ex.P20 is the admissible portion of the said statement. The accused was actually taken to the Government Hospital for testing the potency and the same was tested and Potency Certificate Ex.P10 was also obtained. Pursuant to the confession statement, the accused produced jatti M.O.2, Kaili M.O.3 and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P21 in the presence of witnesses viz. P.Ws.12 and 13. The material objects, which were recovered from the accused and from the place of occurrence, were sent for chemical analysis. Ex.P22 is the chemical analysis report and Ex.P23 is the serological report. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses viz. P.Ws.1 to 20 and relied on 23 documents viz. Ex.P1 to P23 and also relied on M.Os.1 to 6. The Court has examined one witness viz. C.W.1 and marked one document viz. Ex.C1. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. 4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinizing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Sections 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant. 5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that the learned Trial Judge has taken an erroneous view in recording the finding that the accused/appellant was guilty, despite the fact that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it rests only on circumstantial evidence. The girl was actually playing in front of the shop and P.W.17 an auto driver had seen the child playing and also found the accused and child together at the time of occurrence. But he has turned hostile. P.W.10 was an Astrologer, who has actually seen the body of the child inside the premises of the temple. It was he who informed the others and he has also turned hostile. 6. Learned counsel added further that the complaint Ex.P1 was given at 6.30 p.m. In the report, nobody is actually pointed out. Though the prosecution relied on extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused to P.W.18 Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was recorded by him, the learned Trial Judge was not ready to believe the same in view of the evidence of P.W.1. that the accused was arrested on the very day and he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kept in the custody on the next day. In view of the same, the alleged confession statement alleged to have been recorded by P.W.8 Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.8.2004 could not be believed. Learned Trial Judge though rejected that piece of evidence, has awarded conviction and sentence. 7. Learned counsel would further add that even though the statements of the witnesses have been recorded on the next day, it has reached the Court after a long time and the witnesses have turned hostile. All the material objects, which were recovered from the dead body and the material objects viz. Jatti and banian which were recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis and opinion received to the effect that he did not have any sexual intercourse at all during the relevant period. The accused was actually imbalanced and he did not know what was happened, which was taken as defence. But the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused in any manner known to law. Hence the judgment of the Trial Judge has got to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel further added that the learned Trial Judge was actually carried away by the fact of 5 years old girl's rape and murder, which led the Trial Court to take an erroneous view. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused in the hands of the Court. 9. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made. 10. It is not in controversy that a female child viz. Vijayalakshmi, 5 years old was done to death in the incident following the rape. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem and in the post-mortem Certificate, the Doctor gave opinion that the child would appear to have died of vaso vagal shock due to vaginal laceration. The Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, also deposed before the Court and the Certificate was also produced before the Court. Hence, the cause of death was never subjected to controversy. Hence the learned Trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so and the prosecution was able to establish the relevant fact. 11. In the instant case of rape and murder, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon circumstantial evidence. In a given case like this, the prosecution should have produced the evidence, pointing out to the guilt of the accused in an unclinching term. This Court is unable to see any circumstances as pointed out by the prosecution. P.W.17, an auto Driver, who has given statement that the child was playing in front of the temple along with the accused, has turned hostile. P.W.10 Foreteller, who was sitting in front of the temple , found the dead body is not useful to the prosecution. It is not his evidence that he saw the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused along with the child. The other witnesses viz. P.Ws.12 and 13 for recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 following the confession statement given by the accused have also turned hostile. The prosecution was left with the only one piece of evidence viz. the extra judicial confession alleged to have been by the accused to P.W.18 Revenue Divisional Officer P.W.18 on 24.8.2004. The learned Trial Judge has actually rejected this piece of evidence. There is no impediment for this Court to re-appreciate the said evidence, though rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a request that the Trial Judge should have accepted the evidence of P.W.18 Revenue Divisional Officer and also the confession statement recorded by him which is marked as Ex.P14. This Court is unable to agree with the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the State for the reason that P.W.18 has categorically deposed that the accused appeared before him and gave the statement as recorded in Ex.P14, which has taken place on 24.8.2004. Contrarily, P.W.1, the father of the victim has categorically deposed before the Trial court that the accused was arrested on the very night of the occurrence on 21.8.2004 and he was found in the police station the very next day viz. 22.8.2004. The evidence of P.W.1 shall remain undisturbed. There was no contra evidence. If the evidence of P.W.1 was taken into consideration, the evidence of P.W.18 that the accused appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer and gave statement on 24.8.2004 cannot be accepted. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the only piece of evidence of P.W.18 and the statement recorded in Ex.P14, even on re-appreciation, cannot be accepted, in view of the divulging evidence of P.W.1, The prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. Under the circumstances, the Court has no other option than to come to the conclusion that the learned Trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and the same has to be upset and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 13. Accordingly, the above criminal appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C. No.96 of 2006 and the accused/appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The accused/appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ssa. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Perambalur. 3. The Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Perambalur. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Perambalur.. 5. The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station. 6. The District Collector, Perambalur. 7. The Director General of Police, Madras – 4. 8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 9. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy, District. 10. The Section Officer Criminal Section, High court Madras. + 1 cc to Mr. K.V. Sridharan, Advocate Sr.65319 Crl. A. No.349 of 2010 VSV(CO) EU 27.09.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/