Alamelu & Anr vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that PW2 (hereinafter referred to as the "victim" or "girl" according to context) is the daughter of Chinnathambi, (PW1) who is a teacher and resident of Nedupatti Village, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu. The victim had failed in the SSLC examination. Therefore, she was admitted in private tutorial college called Seran Tutorial College.

3. It is alleged that on 31st July, 1993 at about 3.00 p.m. when she was walking near Nedupatti on the way to her house from the local bus stop, after attending her tutorial classes, Sekar (A1) told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her. The victim, however, did not agree to such proposal. Thereafter, a car bearing registration No. TTA 1886 came near the victim and she was forcibly pushed into the car by Sekar (A1). Rangaswami (A2), Paramasivam (A4) and Alamelu (A5) were already inside the car. This incident was 3 informed to the father (PW1) of the victim by one Sugavanam, who had received a call from Sekar (A1). The incident was confirmed by another person called Thangavel (PW3) who informed PW1 about an hour later.

4. Since PW1 is a handicapped person and unable to walk, he sent his relatives in search of his daughter. According to the prosecution case, the car was taken to the residence of Selvi, who is the sister of Sekar (A1) at Pudupatti. Thereafter, Parmasivam (A4), Alamelu (A5) and Subramani (A8) were advising the victim to marry Sekar (A1), however, she refused to do so. At that stage, Kandasamy (A7) declared that it is not necessary to take the consent of PW2 and they should just go to the temple in the morning and perform the marriage ceremony.

5. The next morning, on 1st August, 1993 at 4 `o' clock, they all took the victim to Arapaleeswarar Temple at Kolli Hills. On reaching the temple, Sekar (A1) tied the mangalsutra on the neck of the victim in spite of her resistance. Thereafter, she was taken to Mullukurichi. She was kept in a house and repeatedly raped for three days. 4

6. On 4th August, 1993, she was taken by Sekar (A1) to Palampatti. Since it was known to Sekar (A1) that the police was searching for the girl (PW2), he took her to Thiruverumbur Police Station. He told the police officials there that they were husband and wife and had been legally married.

8. On receipt of a copy of the FIR on 6th August, 1993, the Circle Inspector of Rasipuram Circle (PW11) took over the investigation. On the basis of the information gathered, PW11 arrested Sekar (A1) and rescued the girl (PW2) from door No.86, Thiruverumbur Police colony on 10th August, 1993. In the presence of the witnesses PW11 recovered mangalasutra, the dresses worn by the accused (A1) and the victim under mahazars. He arranged to send the seized properties for chemical analysis. In the morning of 11th 5 August, 1993, Sekar (A1) and Thangamani were sent to the local Magistrate's Court. Thereafter, he (A1) was remanded to judicial custody.

9. At the same time, the victim was sent for a medical examination. PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar examined the victim on 12th August, 1993 at 2.00 p.m. and recorded her findings in report Ex.P13. In the report, she opined that age of the victim was between 17 to 19 years. On the other hand, PW8, Dr. Gunasekaran, the Radiologist had given her age as above 17 years and below 18 years. Dr. Chidambaram (PW14) examined A1 on 11th August, 1993 at 8.00 p.m. In his report (Ex.P15) he stated about the potency of A1.

21. In our opinion, the prosecution version has been distorted from beginning to the end, in an effort to suppress the actual truth. It was the case of the prosecution that Sugavanam had seen the victim being abducted on 31st July, 1993. This fact was brought to the notice of the father (PW1) of the victim (PW2) immediately. Sugavanam had been told about the abduction on the phone by Sekar (A1) himself. The abduction was further confirmed by Thangavel (PW3) about an hour later. According to PW1, he had sent his relatives, namely, Kuppusami, Athiappan, Velumani and Thangavel (PW3) in 12 search of his daughter. But he did not go with them. According to this witness, these persons told him that his daughter could not be located. Therefore, on 2nd August, 1993 he lodged a complaint with the police.

30. She then states that when she was being taken to the temple, she saw some known persons standing at a distance. But she did not yell out for help. According to her, Sekar (A1) had raped her on three consecutive days, i.e., 1st, 2nd and 3rd of August at Mullukurichi. On 4th of August she was taken to Palampatti. However, on 5th August, 1993 when Sekar (A1) received the news that the police was looking for her, she was taken to Tiruchy police station. There he had told the police that they were married. She again did not complain; nor did seek help to be returned home. Thereafter, on 10th August, 1993 Rasipuram Circle Inspector (PW11) had arrived and arrested Sekar (A1). It was only after that she was left with her parents. On the other hand, as noticed earlier, father states that she has been at home with her parents since 3 rd August, 1993. This in our opinion leads to an inescapable conclusion that the versions of the father and the girl are in sharp contrast, if not contradictory to each other.

31. She had further stated that during the night of 10th August, 1993, she had narrated the entire sequence of events to the police. The police had also given her 19 alternative clothing to wear and taken her clothes in possession. According to the victim herself, even after she was recovered on the 10th August, 1993, she did not go to the house of her parents, instead she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle situated at Thengalpalayam. Therefore, it becomes increasingly difficult to place reliance on any one of the prosecution witnesses.

32. Talking about her alleged forced stay in the house at Pudupatti, again she was unable to state whether it was thatched house or terraced house. She was also unable to state as to whether the door of the room in which she was kept could be locked only from outside or from inside. In the same breath, she says that she remained in the room by locking it from inside. But again she changed her mind and said that the door was not locked but it was closed. She talks of one Rangasamy being present. But then she says that there were two individuals by that name, one old and one young. But she did not give any of their particulars to the police, as the police did not ask for them. Yet she claims that both the Rangasamy had taken her to the temple. But then she says to the police that only one Rangasamy took her.

33. Now coming to the marriage, she reiterates that some known persons were present at the temple but on seeing them she did not raise any alarm. She admits that Kuppusami, Velumani, Athiappan, Thangavel and Palaniammal are her close relatives. She also admits that if she had told them that she was in trouble they would have helped her. But she did not complain to her relatives. This would be wholly unnatural behaviour from a girl who had been abducted and was being compelled to marry someone, she did not want to marry.

34. The scene after the alleged marriage is equally blurred. The girl denies ever going to the house of MLA on 3rd August, 1993. She was not aware that any panchayat had been held in his house on that day. She also states that she did not go to the house of her father on 3rd August, 1993. She further denies that she had ever narrated the events that had occurred between 31st July, 1993 to 10th August, 1993 to her parents.

47. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt any of the offences with which the appellants had been charged. It appears that the entire prosecution story has been concocted for reasons best known to the prosecution.

48. In our opinion, the conclusions recorded by both the courts below are wholly perverse. The appellants are clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. All the appellants are acquitted. They are directed to be released forthwith.