Andavan vs The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30-09-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
CNR:{HCMD010609862022}
& CRL MP(MD) No. 20394 of 2026
Andavan
..Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs
The State through,
The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Taluk Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No. 575 of 2015)
..Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No. 284 of 2018
on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Judge, Dindigul, dated
04.03.2022 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant.
For Appellant : Mr. C.Muthu Saravanan,
Legal Aid Counsel.
For Respondent : Mr. A.Robinson,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court,
__________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
Dindigul, in S.C.No.284 of 2018, dated 04.03.2022.
2. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that P.W.13, the
then Sub-Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, received
Ex.P1 complaint from the de-facto complainant on 09.05.2015 and
registered Ex.P10 First Information Report in Crime No.575 of 2015, for
the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 392 of IPC. He
forwarded the original complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul, and other copies to his higher officials.
3. P.W.14 P.Ramakrishnan, the then Inspector of Police, Dindigul
Taluk Police Station, took up the investigation of the above case. On
10.06.2015, at about 6.30 a.m., he visited the place of occurrence and
prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P11 Rough Sketch in the
presence of witnesses. He examined the witnesses Gowri, Piramila Mary
and her husband Jesuraj and Venkatesh and recorded their statements.
4. On 12.06.2015, P.W.2 Piramila Mary appeared before the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Thadikombu Police Station, Tmt.Lakshmi Priya and
gave a statement, which was recorded by her. P.W.2 handed over her
inskirt and innerwear to the said Sub-Inspector of Police, Thadikombu
Police Station, which were recovered under the cover of Athatchi.
P.W.14 examined P.W.1 Gowri and P.W.2 Piramila Mary and recorded
__________
Page 2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
their statements. On the same day, he altered the case sections from
Sections 457 and 392 of IPC to Sections 457, 397 and 376 of IPC.
5. On 12.06.2015, at about 17.00 hours, P.W.14 arrested the
Accused and recorded his confession statement. Based on the disclosure
statement, he recovered a motorcycle, knife, two-sovereign gold chain
and a pair of silver anklets under the cover of Athatchi. Thereafter, he
forwarded the Accused to judicial custody. He also forwarded the victim,
Piramila Mary, for medical examination through Woman Police
Constable, Lakshmi Prabha. On 14.06.2015, he forwarded the Accused
for medical examination through Police Constable, Lawrence of Dindigul
Taluk Police Station.
6. Thereafter, an identification parade was conducted on
28.07.2015. The victim was produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, and her statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. On 30.07.2015, P.W.14 examined the doctors who
conducted the medical examination of the victim and the Accused and
recorded their statements. He forwarded the recovered articles to the
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai. On 17.12.2015, he
examined the Woman Sub-Inspector of Police Lakshmi Prabha, Head
Constable No.257 Anguraj and recorded their statements. Subsequently,
__________
Page 3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
due to his transfer, he handed over the case diary to his successor. He
identified the dresses of the Accused, which were marked as M.O.6 to
M.O.8.
7. P.W.15 T.Murugan, the then Inspector of Police, took up
investigation of the above case on 04.03.2016. He examined the
Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai,
Vijayendran and recorded his statement on the same day. He also
examined the Investigating Officer P.Ramakrishnan and recorded his
statement. On completion of investigation, he laid the final report before
the Trial Court. The vehicle was identified and marked as M.O.9.
8. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, took cognizance
of the final report and issued summons to the Accused. On his
appearance, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution
were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offences
were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed
to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul. The learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, took cognizance of the
case in S.C.No.284 of 2018 and made over the same to the Fast Track
Mahila Court, Dindigul, for trial in accordance with law.
9. The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, framed charges against
__________
Page 4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 376 and 397
of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the Accused, which
he denied. Hence, the Accused was tried by the Trial Court.
10. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.9 were
also marked. Upon closure of the prosecution side evidence, the
incriminating materials appeared against the Accused in the evidence of
the prosecution were put to him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He
denied the same as false and stated that he has witnesses on his side. On
the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined.
11. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has found the Accused
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 457, 376 and 397 of IPC
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under
Section 457 of IPC., for the offence under Section 397 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and for the offence
under Section 397 of IPC to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period
of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
__________
Page 5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
12. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Accused
has preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State. The Trial Court records were called for and
perused.
13. Point for Determination :-
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the Accused is
sustainable?
Answer:-
14. It is the case of the prosecution that the de-facto complainant,
P.W.1 Gowri, and the victim, P.W.2 Piramila Mary, were working as
nurses in the Primary Health Centre situate at M.M.Kovilur. On
08.06.2015, during the night hours, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were
attending night duty at the said Primary Health Centre, at about 2.00 a.m.
on 09.06.2015, the Accused allegedly broke open the southern side door
lock and trespassed into the Primary Health Centre and threatened both
the de-facto complainant and the victim by showing a knife and thereafter
committed rape upon P.W.2. He also allegedly robbed the gold chain
worn by P.W.1 and a pair of silver anklets worn by P.W.2. Thus,
according to the prosecution, the appellant committed the offences
__________
Page 6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
punishable under Sections 457, 376 and 397 of IPC.
15. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined
P.W.1 to P.W.15, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and also marked M.O.1 to
M.O.9.
16. P.W.1 Gowri, the de-facto complainant, who set the criminal
law in motion, deposed that she was working as an Assistant at the
Primary Health Centre, Ma.Mu.Kovilur. On 08.06.2015, she and P.W.2
Piramila Mary were on night duty. At about 9.00 p.m., they had dinner
and thereafter went to sleep. At about 11.00 p.m., P.W.1 noticed a light
near the window. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went towards the window and
questioned as to who has thrown light. At that time, a person standing in
fornt of the entrance informed them that a woman had come for delivery
and that he would go home and bring the patient. Thereafter, he left the
place and both P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to sleep.
17. At about 2.00 a.m., P.W.1 heard some sound and both of them
woke up. They noticed a person who had broke open the back gate and
entered into the Primary Health Centre. When PW1 questioned him as to
why he had entered inside, he placed a knife on her neck and threatened
her that he would stab her if she raised an alarm. He informed P.W.1 that
he wanted to see P.W.2 naked and that he would not cause any harm to
__________
Page 7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
her. Thereafter, he threatened P.W.2 by showing the knife, pushed her on
the cot and misbehaved with her.
18. P.W.1 further deposed that the Accused took away the two-
sovereign gold chain worn by her and the silver anklets worn by P.W.2
and threatened both of them by saying if they disclose the occurrence to
anyone he would kill them. Thereafter, she informed the occurrence to
the husband of P.W.2 and, in the morning, lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In
the complaint, she had stated that her gold chain was missing. After three
days, P.W.2 Piramila Mary informed about the occurrence to her
husband, and thereafter, she and PW1 proceeded to the Taluk Police
Station and informed the police. P.W.1 identified the Accused as the
person who had threatened them by showing a knife and committed rape
upon P.W.2. She also identified M.O.1 knife and her M.O.2. gold chain.
19. P.W.2 Piramila Mary, the victim, deposed that in the year 2015,
she and P.W.1 were working as nurses at the Primary Health Centre at
Ma.Mu.Kovilur. On 08.06.2015, both of them were on night duty. At
about 10.30 p.m., while she was about to sleep, she noticed a light near
the window. She and P.W.1 Gowri enquired about the same. A person
aged about 35 years was standing near the front gate. When they
questioned him, he informed them that he wanted to see whether his wife
__________
Page 8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
had come there for delivery. They asked him not to throw light inside.
Thereafter, he left the place.
20. P.W.2 further deposed that at about 2.30 a.m., she woke up on
hearing some sound and saw the said person placing a knife on the neck
of P.W.1. Thereafter, he pushed P.W.1 down, locked the door and came
towards P.W.2. He placed the knife on her neck and asked her to remove
her clothes. When she refused, he threatened her that he would stab her.
Thereafter, he pushed her down and forcibly had sexual intercourse with
her.
21. P.W.2 further deposed that thereafter the Accused demanded to
remove her chain. Since the chain had thali, he demanded her a pair of
silver anklets and took away the same. He also took away the gold chain
worn by P.W.1 Gowri. He threatened them that if they disclose the
occurrence to anyone, it would bring disrepute to them only and further
threatened them by saying that he would murder them.
22. P.W.2 stated that, thereafter, she remained in the house for
about two days without taking food. When her husband questioned her as
to why she was not going for work and was remaining at home without
eating, she disclosed the occurrence to him. Thereafter, she and her
husband proceeded to the Taluk Police Station, Dindigul, and informed
__________
Page 9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
the police about the occurrence. P.W.2 also stated that P.W.1 had already
lodged a complaint regarding the snatching of her chain.
23. She identified the Accused as the person who had committed
rape on her. She also identified the pair of silver anklets in the witness
box, which were marked as M.O.3. She had handed over the dresses worn
by her at the time of the occurrence at the time of investigation and
identified them, which were marked as M.O.4 and M.O.5.
24. P.W.3 Jesuraj, the husband of P.W.2, deposed that, about three
years prior to the occurrence, his wife had gone for night duty and called
him at around 4.00 a.m., asking him to come to the hospital where she
was working. Accordingly, he went there. She informed him that a person
had threatened her by showing a knife and had taken away her silver
anklets. Thereafter, he took her to his house. For two days, she kept
weeping without eating. When he questioned her, she informed him that
the person who had snatched her anklets had also committed rape on her.
He took his wife to the Dindigul Taluk Police Station and reported the
occurrence. The police thereafter took his wife to the Government
Hospital, Dindigul, for medical examination.
25. P.W.4 Venkatesan the husband of P.W.1 Gowri, deposed that,
about two years prior to his examination, his wife and P.W.2 were on
__________
Page 10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
night duty. At around 3.00 a.m., a person threatened P.W.1 and snatched
her gold chain. The same person also took away the silver anklets worn
by P.W.2. He was informed that the Accused had threatened P.W.2 at
knife-point and committed rape on her.
26. P.W.5, one of the witnesses to the Observation Mahazar,
deposed that, four years ago, one day, the police came to the Primary
Health Centre and prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar at around 7.00
a.m. He signed the said mahazar as a witness. P.W.6 Anthony Raj,
another witness to the Observation Mahazar corroborated the evidence of
P.W.5.
27. P.W.7 Rayappan, deposed that, about four years prior to his
examination, the police enquired the Accused in connection with the
occurrence relating to the M.M.Kovilur Government Hospital. The police
recovered the gold chain and silver anklets from the Accused and also
recovered the knife and dresses from his house. The Athatchi under
which the said articles recovered were identified and marked as Ex.P.4
and Ex.P.5.
28. P.W.8 Dr. Ramaladha, conducted an ossification test on P.W.2
on 15.06.2015 and opined that her age was approximately 21 years. In
this regard, he issued Ex.P.7 certificate.
__________
Page 11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
29. P.W.9 Dr. Prema, who conducted the medical examination of
P.W.2, deposed that, at the time of examination on 12.06.2015, P.W.2
informed her that, while she was on night duty at the M.M.Kovilur
Primary Health Centre, an unknown person had threatened her by
showing a knife and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. On
examination, the doctor found that P.W.2 had no hymen and that there
were no external injuries on her body. In this regard, she issued Ex.P.6
Certificate.
30. P.W.10 Balamurugan, another witness to the arrest, confession
and recovery, did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore
was treated as hostile by the prosecution.
31. P.W.11 Dr.Rathan Babu, is the one who conducted the medical
examination of the appellant, deposed that he had issued Ex.P.8
certificate after examining the appellant stating that there is nothing on
record to suggest that the appellant was incapable of committing sexual
intercourse.
32. P.W.12 Lakshmi Priya, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thadikombu Police Station, deposed that, on 12.06.2015, she examined
the victim, P.W.2 Piramila Mary and recorded her statement and handed
__________
Page 12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
over the same to the Inspector of Police. She also recovered the inskirt
and innerwear of the victim under Form 95 and handed over the same to
the Inspector of Police. The said Form 91 was identified and marked as
Ex.P.9.
33. P.W.13 Saravanan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Dindigul
Taluk Police Station, received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered
Ex.P10/First Information Report.
34. P.W.14 and P.W.15 are the Investigating Officers, deposed
about the investigation they conducted, preparation of the Observation
Mahazar and Rough Sketch, recording of the statements of the witnesses,
recovery of the dresses of the victim, arrest of the Accused, recovery of
the stolen gold jewels, conduct of the identification parade, conduct of the
medical examination of the Accused and the victim, collection of samples
from the victim and forwarding of the same to the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madurai, collection the medical certificates from the
doctors who had examined the Accused and the victim and, filing of the
final report before the Trial Court.
35. On the defence side, D.W.1 Raguvel deposed that, on
10.06.2015, he and the Accused had gone to purchase liquor. Two
persons intercepted them near the house of a flower vendor at
__________
Page 13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
Pilamanayakanpatti and attacked both of them. Thereafter, D.W.1 and the
motor cycle were taken to the Dindigul Police Station. At that time, the
police informed them that the vehicle would be returned only if the
Accused came to the police station. On 11.06.2015, when the Accused
appeared, D.W.1 was released. The Accused was handed over to the
Police by his Advocate.
36. On careful perusal of the evidence projected on the side of the
prosecution, it is found that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were working as nurses at
the M.M.Kovilur Primary Health Centre. The said factum was not
disputed by the defence. It is the further case of the prosecution that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were on night duty on 08.06.2015, and the said fact was
also not disputed by the defence.
37. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2, the appellant herein came to
the scene of occurrence at around 11.00 p.m. There was a light near the
window. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned him, he stated that he had
come there to see whether his wife had been admitted for delivery.
Thereafter, he left the place. They further deposed that the Accused
returned at around 2.30 a.m. by breaking open the back gate. The said
fact was also not disputed by the defence.
38. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is found that the
__________
Page 14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
witnesses claim that Accused placed M.O.1 knife on the neck of P.W.1
and threatened to stab her if she raise an alarm. Thereafter, he pushed
P.W.1 aside, locked the door and approached P.W.2. He placed the knife
against her neck and asked her to remove her clothes. When she refused,
the Accused threatened to stab her, pushed her to the ground and forcibly
had sexual intercourse with her. He then asked her to remove her gold
chain. Since the chain contained thali, he changed his mind and removed
her silver anklets instead. He also took the gold chain from Gowri and
escaped from the scene of occurrence.
39. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that, in Ex.P1 complaint, P.W.1 did not disclose anything
about the alleged rape committed on P.W.2. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1
complaint, it is found that the same was lodged on 09.06.2015 at around
22 hours with a delay of one day and 19 hours. Further, the complaint and
the First Information Report reached the Court only at 10.30 a.m. on
12.06.2015.
40. From the evidence of P.W.14 P.Ramakrishnan, it is found that
he examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the very same day on which the
complaint was received, ie., on 09.06.2015. On careful perusal of the
statement recorded at that time, it is found that they have not spoken
__________
Page 15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
anything about the rape committed on PW2. Only in the further statement
recorded on 12.06.2015, P.W.2 has spoken about the alleged rape
committed on her. It was not made clear as to why PW2 has not stated
about the rape committed on her. Even assuming that PW2 has not
revealed the same due to fear of her husband, it was not made clear as to
why PW1 has not whispered anything about the said rape either in the
complaint or in the statement given to police. It is not her case that PW2
requested that she should not reveal the rape committed on PW2 to the
police. The said conduct of the witnesses appears to be unnatural which
creates doubts in the case of the prosecution.
41. Further, from the evidence of P.W.2, it is found that the
appellant had locked the door and committed rape on her while P.W.1
was standing outside the room. P.W.1 was not kept under any fear.
However, she did not raise any alarm or call upon anyone from outside to
seek help. It is not the case of P.W.1 that she had attempted to raise an
alarm informing others that the appellant was committing rape on P.W.2.
Further, though P.W.2 claimed that the appellant had threatened her with
a knife and committed rape on her, she did not resist the said act and had
not sustained any injuries in the alleged occurrence. She did not make any
attempt to escape from the appellant's custody or raise an alarm to seek
help from others. The Accused has also not sustained any injury in the
__________
Page 16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
alleged occurrence of rape. The said conduct of PW1 and PW2 at the
time of occurrence also creates doubts in their version.
42. Further, PW2 has spoken about the alleged rape only in her
further statement recorded on 12.06.2015. From the cross-examination of
P.W.2, it is found that, when she and her husband went to the police
station, the Accused had already been arrested and kept in custody.
Therefore, the defence contends that the allegation of rape emerged only
after the arrest of the Accused. In this regard, the defence has raised a
point that, on 10.06.2015, there was a quarrel between the appellant and
the police. Therefore, the allegation of rape was subsequently introduced
to strengthen the prosecution case.
43. The delay in lodging the complaint, the non-disclosure of the
alleged rape in the complaint and the statement initially recorded, coupled
with the fact that the victim had not sustained any injuries during the
alleged occurrence and that P.W.1 had not raised any alarm or attempted
to seek help from the neighbours, creates serious doubts regarding the
case of the prosecution as to the offence of rape.
44. However, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clear
that the appellant herein entered the hospital and committed theft of the
gold chain and silver anklets. The said gold chain and silver anklets were
__________
Page 17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
recovered from the appellant based on the disclosure made by him to the
Investigation Officer. The appellant has not offered any satisfactory
explanation as to how the said gold chain and silver anklets came into his
possession.
45. Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, says, If the
Accused is found in custody of stolen jewels then the Court may presume
that he is the thief or he is the receiver of stolen good.
“The Court may presume -(a) that a man, who is in
possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either
the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be
stolen, unless he can account for his possession ;”
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the appellant
regarding his possession, this Court is of the considered view that the
Trial Court is right in raising the presumption under Section 114(a) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the appellant was the person who had
committed the theft of the said articles.
46. However, the learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohamed Sameer Khan v.
State, represented by the Inspector of Police , reported in 2025 ICO
3485 , held that, the Accused in his statement under Section 313(1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had been picked up earlier
from elsewhere and caught by the police, such a statement creates serious
__________
Page 18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
doubts regarding the voluntariness of the alleged confession and false
articles. According to the counsel for appellant, in this case also, from
D.W.1, the defence had established that D.W.1 was detained by the
police in order to secure the custody of the appellant. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the arrest, confession
and recovery are doubtful. The learned counsel for the appellant further
relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh
v. Mahabeer Singh and others, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 to say if
the recovery is doubtful, the benefits of doubts to be extended to the
Accused.
47. As stated supra, the appellant has not disputed the recovery of
the stolen articles from him, except by way of vague denial that the
articles were not recovered from his possession, nothing was brought on
record which creates the recovery doubtful. Therefore, the said case has
no application to the facts of the present case.
48. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State
of Punjab, reported in 2026 INSC 1054 , to say, that the statement of the
victim has to be accepted as a whole and cannot be dissected, and that
there is no question of acceptance of partial statement and non acceptance
__________
Page 19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
of partial statement.
49. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Paramjit Singh Bedi , cited supra, it is found that the said decision was
rendered in the context of Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the statement of the victim was
rightly disbelieved in respect of the charge under Section 366 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, the Trial Court relied upon the same
judgment for convicting the Accused under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code. In this context, the appellate Court held that the evidence has
to be read in whole.
50. It is well settled that Indian Courts do not follow the principle
of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Instead, the principle of separating the
chaff from the grain is adopted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its
decision in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi ) (2003) 11 SCC 367
reiterated the classification of the witnesses based on their reliability as follows:
“8. In Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras 1957 AIR(SC) 614 )
this Court had gone into this controversy and divided the nature of
witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly
unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In
the case of first to categories this Court said that they pose little
difficulty but in the case of third category of witness corroboration
would be required. The relevant portion is quoted as under:
"...Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of
law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the
quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
__________
Page 20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified
into three categories, namely:
1) Wholly reliable.
2) Wholly unreliable.
3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unrealiable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on
the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach
or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be
circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars
by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another
danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the
quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist
on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly
encouraging subornation of witnesses..."
51. From the above decision it is clear that if the oral testimony of
the witnesses fall into the third category i.e neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable, then the courts shall look for corroboration. In the case
on hand, the oral testimony of the PW1 and PW2 falls under the third
category, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, insofar as the offence of
robbery is concerned, is fully corroborated by the recovery of the stolen
articles. However, the offence of rape is not corroborated by any other
evidence, including the medical evidence. Therefore, this court can easily
remove the chaff from the grain and sustain the conviction as against the
appellant with regard to Sections 452 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
52. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the finding
of the Trial Court with regard to the conviction of the appellant and the
__________
Page 21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
sentence imposed on him in respect of the offences under Section 457 of
IPC., and Section 397 of IPC does not warrant any interference.
53. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections
457 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code are upheld. The appellant is
directed to undergo the sentences concurrently. The appellant is entitled
to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
stands closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
jja
__________
Page 22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
To
1. The learned Fast Track Mahila Judge,
Dindigul.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Taluk Police Station.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
jja
CRL A(MD) No. 480 of 2022
&
CRL MP(MD) No. 20394 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 09:58:25 am )