Rajasooryan vs The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
Crl.A(MD) No.36 of 2020
CNR:{HCMD010013492020}
Rajasooryan
..Appellant
Vs
The Inspector of Police
Ramanathapuram Town Police Station,
Crime No.132 of 2012.
..Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
admit the appeal preferred by this appellant/accused and call for the records
from the Trial Court in S.C.No.127 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and set aside the conviction
and sentence dated 08.11.2019, imposed on the appellant.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan
for M/s.APN Law Associates
For Respondent :Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed against
the appellant in S.C.No.127 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram dated 08.11.2019.
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim, aged about 23 years, is
an auditory and speech-impaired person. On 09.04.2012, at about 13.00 hours,
the appellant forcibly took the victim to a nearby hut and committed rape on
her. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by the mother of the victim and
two others, and on their arrival, the appellant ran away from the scene. A First
Information was lodged immediately with the respondent Police, who
registered a case on the same day, arrested the accused, investigated the case,
collected evidence and laid a final report against him before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
3. Following due process, the learned Magistrate committed the case to
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, who made it over to
the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, for trial. The prosecution
examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and two material objects.
The defence adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence. The learned Trial
Judge, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, concluded that the
offences under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC were proved by the prosecution
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted and
sentenced as follows:
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
Section of Law Sentence of
Fine
Imprisonment
450 of IPC Seven years of Rigorous
Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo
Imprisonment
three months Simple
Imprisonment
376 of IPC Ten years of Simple
Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo
Imprisonment
three months Simple
Imprisonment
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction
and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Heard both sides.
Submissions of the parties
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, of the three
alleged eyewitnesses, two turned hostile. The mother, though she supported
the case of the prosecution, did not specifically speak about the act of sexual
intercourse. The statement of PW3, who is an auditory- and speech-impaired
person, was not recorded immediately by the Police. It was recorded with
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
the help of a special educator only after one and a half years. Before this
Court, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PW3 did not
inspire confidence and was not cogent. PW3 is an illiterate person, and her
deposition was not correctly interpreted by the Special Educator, as the
witness herself had not received any special education was the further
submission of the learned Senior Counsel.
6. The learned counsel further pointed out inconsistencies in the
evidence of PW3, who stated that her mother came back home only at 8.00
PM in the night, whereas the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at
13.00 hours in the afternoon. It was also pointed out that the evidence of
PW3 was not supported by the medical evidence. The doctor (PW9), who
examined the victim on the day after the occurrence, stated that she did not
notice any injury on the body of PW3. No injury was noted on the private
parts, and the doctor specifically ruled out the possibility of forcible
penetrative sexual assault. Though the doctor noted that the hymen was torn,
she did not notice any external injuries and ruled out the possibility of recent
sexual intercourse. Pointing out these inconsistencies in the prosecution
case, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was a case of false
implication and prayed for acquittal.
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) argued that
the victim as well as her mother had clearly spoken about the occurrence
and supported the case of the prosecution. The attention of this Court was
drawn to the fact that PW3, the victim, was cross-examined after a period
of four years, and that it was only during the further cross-examination
that she made a contrary statement regarding the time of arrival of her
mother. He therefore prayed for upholding the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court.
Points for determination and the governing principles
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions. The
question for determination is whether the prosecution has proved, beyond
reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed house-trespass and rape on
the victim, as found by the Trial Court. This Court, as the first appellate
court, is bound to reappraise the evidence on record for itself.
9. The law on the point is well settled. A conviction for rape can rest
on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be reliable and to
inspire confidence, without any corroboration. Where her testimony is not of
that quality, the Court must look for independent corroboration from the
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
surrounding circumstances, the medical evidence or other reliable evidence.
The absence of injuries or of semen is not by itself fatal to the prosecution
case where the oral testimony is trustworthy, because penetration, however
slight, is sufficient to constitute the offence. But where the oral evidence is
itself doubtful, the absence of any medical or forensic corroboration
assumes decisive significance. The prosecution must prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, and where two views are reasonably possible, the benefit
of doubt must go to the accused.
The alleged eyewitnesses
10. The victim (PW3) was 23 years old at the time of the occurrence.
She is an auditory- and speech-impaired person, and she had no intellectual
disability. The occurrence is alleged to have happened at 13.00 hours on
09.04.2012 in a small hut belonging to one Rakku Thevar. PW1, the mother
of the victim, stated that she, along with two others (PW4 and PW5),
witnessed the occurrence. PW4 and PW5, however, did not support the case
of the prosecution and turned hostile. Nothing effective was elicited from
them in cross-examination, and their evidence is therefore of no use to the
prosecution. The prosecution case of three eyewitnesses is thus reduced to
the evidence of PW1 alone.
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
11. The evidence of PW1 is itself unsatisfactory. She did not specifically
speak about the act of sexual intercourse. More importantly, PW3 stated in
her cross-examination that her mother came back home only at night, at 8.00
PM. If this statement is accepted, PW1 could not have been present at the
scene at 13.00 hours and could not have witnessed the occurrence. If PW1's
version is accepted, the sworn statement of PW3 is contradicted. In either
event, the two principal witnesses of the prosecution contradict each other on
whether the occurrence was witnessed at all, and this goes to the root of the
prosecution case.
12. The submission that PW3 made this statement only during
the further cross-examination, four years after her chief examination, does
not remove the contradiction. The statement forms part of the sworn
testimony of the prosecutrix herself, who is the principal witness of the
prosecution, and it relates to a fact central to the case, namely, the presence
of the mother as an eyewitness. This Court cannot disregard it.
The medical and forensic evidence
13. PW1 stated that she handed over the blood-stained dress materials
of the victim to the Police. The forensic reports in Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 do not
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
bear this out. No spermatozoa or semen was detected in any of the items
examined. Ex.P5 specifically states that no semen was detected on the
petticoat or on the nighty worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence.
PW7, Scientific Officer Vijayendiran, deposed that spermatozoa were found
in none of the items forensically examined. Although the blood groups of
the victim and the appellant were determined from the control blood
samples, no blood was detected on the dress materials recovered from the
victim. It is true that the petticoat and the nighty were not analysed for the
presence of blood, and that omission is a lapse in the investigation. But the
burden is on the prosecution, and this Court cannot fill that gap by
assumption. The only forensic evidence on record does not corroborate
PW1's statement that the dress was blood-stained, and her version is
therefore unsupported on this aspect as well. The doctor, Dr.Ramaneeswari
(PW9), who examined the victim on the day after the occurrence, stated
clearly that the victim did not sustain any injury and that no external or
internal injuries were found on her body. The pubic hair of the victim was
combed, but no foreign particles were found, according to PW9. The doctor
specifically ruled out the possibility of penetrative sexual assault. The torn
hymen noted by PW9 does not by itself prove forcible intercourse on the
date alleged, particularly when no injury was found and the doctor herself
excluded penetrative sexual assault.
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
14. The prosecution alleges a forcible assault on a 23-year-old woman.
Yet neither the victim nor the accused bore any injury. The medical
examination of the accused revealed no injury on his person, and only his
potency was tested. The hut, which was used as a kitchen, showed no sign of
struggle either to the Police or to PW1, though the utensils and other items
would have been scattered around if the victim had been forcibly dragged
into it. The absence of any injury on either person and of any disturbance in
the hut is inconsistent with the case of forcible sexual assault and, without
any other explanation, raises a genuine doubt.
15. In short, the medical and forensic evidence does not support the
oral evidence at any point. Its absence would not matter if the oral evidence
were otherwise trustworthy, but, as shown below, it is not.
The evidence of the victim (PW3)
16. The victim cannot be disbelieved merely because she is auditory-
and speech-impaired. Under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, a
witness who is unable to speak may give evidence by writing or signs, and
such evidence is deemed to be oral evidence. Her testimony is therefore
entitled to the same weight as that of any other witness, and a conviction can
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
be based on it alone if it is found to be trustworthy. The question is whether
it is so.
17. Several features of her evidence prevent this Court from so holding.
First, her statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer
immediately. It was recorded only after one and a half years, with the help
of a special educator. She was the only person who could speak to the act
itself, and the prosecution has not offered any explanation before this Court
for this delay in recording her statement. Second, where evidence is given
through an interpreter, the reliability of the communication is essential. The
contention that the Special Educator did not correctly interpret her
deposition cannot be brushed aside lightly where the witness herself had not
received any special education. Third, on a careful perusal of her evidence,
for most of the questions she could not give rational answers. Whatever the
cause, the result is that her evidence as recorded does not allow this
Court to say with certainty what she meant to convey on the crucial aspects.
Fourth, her own statement that her mother returned home only at 8.00 PM
contradicts the prosecution case on a material point, as already discussed.
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
18. Her evidence, therefore, does not inspire the confidence required to
sustain a conviction on her sole testimony. As explained above, there is also
no reliable corroboration from the eyewitnesses, the medical evidence or the
forensic evidence.
Conclusion on the charges
19. The First Information was lodged promptly, which counts in favour
of the prosecution. But promptness alone cannot make up for the
unreliability of the substance of the evidence. Taking the evidence as a
whole, the two alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile, the third is contradicted
by the prosecutrix herself, the medical and forensic evidence offers no
corroboration, there was no sign of struggle or injury, and the evidence of
the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. A conjoint reading of the
evidence of PW1 and PW3, coupled with the medical evidence, shows that
the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
20. The conviction under Section 450 of IPC depends on proof that
the appellant entered the hut in order to commit rape, an offence punishable
with imprisonment for life. As the prosecution has failed to prove the
alleged sexual assault, and there is no independent reliable evidence of the
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
entry or of the intention with which it was made, the conviction under
Section 450 of IPC cannot stand on its own.
21. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that there
are serious doubts in the case of the prosecution. The appellant is entitled to
the benefit of those doubts, and this Court is unable to uphold the conviction
and sentence.
Result
22. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of both charges, under
Sections 450 and 376 of IPC. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.127 of 2014,
dated 08.11.2019, as against the appellant, is set aside.
23. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The bail bond
executed by the appellant is discharged, and the fine amount already paid is
ordered to be refunded to the appellant.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
To
1. The Inspector of Police
Ramanathapuram Town Police Station.
Crime No.132 of 2012
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 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.36 of 2020
04-11-2026
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 36 of 2020
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:41:03 pm )