Ponnuthai vs The Inspector of Police

Court
Madras High Court

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.303 of 2020
CNR:{HCMD011110772019}
Ponnuthai ..Appellant/Victim/PW1
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Sankarankoil,
Tirunelveli District.
Cr.No.1/2015
2. Saravanan ..Respondent
PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Jduge,
Mahila Court, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No.145 of 2016, dated
27.08.2019 and convict the accused person.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar
For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.M.Jothibasu
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
passed by the set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Court, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No.145 of 2016, dated 27.08.2019.
nd
2. The case of the prosecution is that in October 2014, the 2
respondent trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix, who is a
physically challenged woman and forcibly committed rape on her against
her will. She became pregnant and lodged a complaint on 16.02.2015.
The accused was arrested and the case was investigated. A final report
nd
was filed against the 2 respondent before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, who, following due process, committed the case to the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The case was thereafter
made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli
District.
3. After considering the materials placed on record, the Trial Court
framed charges under Sections 450, 342, 376(P) and 506(i) of the Indian
Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial was ordered.
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. The
defence examined one witness and exhibited one document. No material
object was marked on either side. After considering the entire evidence,
nd
the learned Trial Judge acquitted the 2 respondent of all charges.
Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the prosecutrix has preferred this
appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/prosecutrix submitted that
this is a case of forcible rape and that the evidence of P.W.1 is clear on
the point. He submitted that the doctor, who examined the prosecutrix
immediately after the complaint was lodged and was examined as P.W.8,
supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. He further submitted
that the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 also corroborates P.W.1. He
contended that, despite overwhelming evidence on record, the leanred
Trial Judge erred in acquitting the accused. The appellant prayed that the
nd
judgment be reversed and that the 2 respondent be convicted on the
evidence available on record.
nd
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2 respondent submitted
that the appellant is a married woman whose marriage was subsisting,
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
and that the relationship was consensual. He also pointed out
inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the
appellant and pointed out that the prosecutrix had told the doctor that the
first occurrence was without her consent and that the subsequent acts
were with her consent. He prayed that the judgment be reversed.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions put
forth by either side and examined the evidence on record.
8. Point for consideration:
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge
as against the second respondent by order dated 27.08.2019 warrants
interference?
Answer:
9. First, P.W.1 asserted that she is an unmarried woman. That
assertion is falsified by the evidence of D.W.1, who deposed before the
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
Trial Court that a panchayat was held to dissolve the marriage of the
appellant with one Nagarajan. D.W.1, who is himself a signatory, also
proved a document signed by the appellant and her husband Nagarajan.
Whatever the legal effect of that dissolution, the fact remains that the
prosecutrix described herself as unmarried when she was not.
10. The suppression of her earlier marriage in the complaint casts
serious doubt on the narration of the prosecution, because it goes to the
credibility of the sole prosecution witness on the core allegation. P.W.1
nd
stated that the first act of sexual intercourse between her and the 2
respondent took place about five months before the complaint and
claimed that it involved a forcible entry into her house and forcible sex.
In cross-examination, however, she admitted that the accused used to
visit her house often and that she was moving closely with him. She
further admitted that this close relationship was known to the wife and
nd
parents of the 2 respondent and to her own parents. These admissions
are difficult to reconcile with her version that the first act was forcible.
11. P.W.1 also admitted in cross-examination that her parents did
nd
not warn her against moving closely with the 2 respondent.
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
Although she claimed in her chief-examination that the intercourse
was forcible and against her will, she made no complaint to anyone after
the occurrence, and she made no protest even at the time of the first
occurrence, five months before the complaint was lodged. Such silence is
inconsistent with the conduct of a human being who has been forcibly
violated.
12. It is also on record that she continued to have sexual
nd
intercourse with the 2 respondent thereafter, and the evidence of the
doctor is clear on this point. It was only after she became pregnant that
she lodged a complaint with the Police. No explanation for the delay has
been brought to the notice of this Court. The sequence of events therefore
suggests that the complaint followed the pregnancy rather than the
alleged act.
13. The learned Trial Judge considered the evidence of P.W.1
together with that of P.W.5, the alleged eyewitness to the first act of
nd
sexual intercourse. P.W.5 stated that the 2 respondent went inside the
house of the prosecutrix, closed the doors and came out only after half an
hour. His evidence thus speaks to the entry and the duration of the stay,
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
not to the use of force. P.W.5 also stated that P.W.1 complained to
him immediately after the occurrence. Yet no complaint was lodged with
the Police. Had
P.W.1 truly told P.W.5 of a rape immediately after it occurred, a prompt
complaint to the Police would have followed. Instead, P.W.1 continued
nd
her close relationship with the 2 respondent and had physical relations
with him on several occasions. This conduct raises a reasonable doubt in
the prosecution case, and the learned Trial Judge rightly gave the benefit
nd
of that doubt to the 2 respondent and acquitted him of all charges.
14. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are possible on
the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted,
because the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence already
available to him. A judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed merely
because a different view is possible from the evidence of P.W.1 and her
statement to the doctor, P.W.8. Considering the evidence as a whole, the
relationship appears to have been consensual, between a married woman
and another married person.
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
15. This Court therefore finds no illegality or perversity in the
judgment of the Trial Court that would justify interference. Accordingly,
the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli
District, in S.C.No.145 of 2016, dated 27.08.2019, is upheld and the
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rgm
To
1. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Sankarankoil,
Tirunelveli District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )

Crl.A(MD) No. 303 of 2020
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
rgm
Crl.A(MD) No.303 of 2020
10-11-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 07:03:10 pm )