JEYALAKSHMI vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 11-09-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) Nos.27, 33 and 73 of 2019
CRL A(MD) No.27 of 2019
1. Jeyalakshmi
2. Pandi
3. Kavitha
4. Ayyanar ..Appellants/Accused 3,5,6 and 7
CRL A(MD) No. 33 of 2019
1. Sonaimuthu
2. Karthick ..Appellants/ Accused 2 and 4
CRL A(MD) No. 73 of 2019
Saravanan ..Appellant/1st Accused
Vs
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
All Women Police Station
Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District
Crime No.7 of 2015 ..Respondent in Crl.A(MD) Nos.27 &
st
33 of 2019 and 1 respondent in
Crl.A(MD) No.73 of 2019
2.Rekha ..2nd respondent in Crl.A(MD)
No.73 of 2019
__________
Page 1 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C
to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram District in S.C.No.127 of
2015, dated 22.01.2019 and acquit the appellants/Accused No.1 to 7 by
allowing the appeal.
For Appellants in all cases : Mr.M.Suresh Babu,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.V.Maruthupandian
For Respondent in Crl.A(MD)
Nos.27 and 33 of 2019 and : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar
st
1 respondent in Crl.A(MD) Government Advocate Crl.Side
No.73 of 2019: for R1
nd
For 2 Respondent in
Crl.A(MD) No.73 of 2019 : Mr.A.Arputharaj
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.127of 2015, dated 22.01.2019.
2. On careful perusal of records, it is found that on 19.03.2015 at
around 10.00 a.m. based on the complaint given by PW1 Rekha, daughter of
Jayakumar, PW22 Tmt.Chithradevi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, All
Women Police Station, Kamuthi, registered Ex.P17 First Information Report
in Crime No.7 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 417,
376, 506(i) of IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST
Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014. PW22 has forwarded the First
__________
Page 2 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and other
higher officials.
3. PW24 Mr.Sekar Theshmukh, the then Assistant Superintendent of
Police, Kamuthi, had taken up the investigation of the said case as per
Ex.P19 proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam on
19.03.2015. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P3
Observation Mahazar and Ex.P20 Rough Sketch in the presence of
witnesses Selvarajakani and Malairaja. On the same day, at around 12.00
noon, he visited the secondary scene of crime and prepared Ex.P21
Observation Mahazar and Ex.P22 Rough Sketch in the presence of the same
witnesses. He examined the de facto complainant and other witnesses and
recorded their statements. On the same day, he arrested the Accused
Saravanan, Sonaimuthu, Pandi and Ayyanar at Kottaimedu bus stand,
brought them to the Police Station and caused them to be remanded to
judicial custody.
4. On 23.03.2015, he forwarded the victim for medical examination
through Grade-I PC 1473, Tmt.Indra and Manickavalli and forwarded the
Accused Saravanan for medical examination through Special Sub-Inspector
of Police Rajendran and Grade-I PC Ethiraj. On 22.03.2015, he gave a
requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai, for recording the
__________
Page 3 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 25.03.2015, he examined the
witnesses, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Chitradevi, the Special Sub-
Inspector of Police Mr.Srinivasan and Grade I PC 1840 Rathinavel and
recorded their statements. On 26.03.2015, he examined Head Constable
1473 Indira, Manickavalli and SSI Mr.Rajendiran and recorded their
statements.
5. On 27.03.2015, he examined the Head Constable Tmt.Backiaselvi,
who forwarded the victim to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai
and recorded the statement under Section 164 of CrPC. On 05.04.2015, he
forwarded the samples collected from the Accused to the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory. On 07.04.2015, he examined the de facto complainant
Jayakumar and Papa and recorded their further statements. On 08.04.2015,
he examined the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Amalurpaya, Jeyaram and
Tahsildar Naganathan and recorded their statements. He received the
community certificates of the Accused and the de facto complainant and
forwarded the same to the Court.
6. On 12.04.2015, he examined Nesamuthu Selvi and Valarmathi and
recorded their statements. On 13.04.2015, he forwarded the samples
collected from the victim to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory
through Head Constable 406. On 17.04.2015, he examined Woman Head
__________
Page 4 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
Constable Backiyajothi and recorded her statements. On 18.04.2015, the
Accused Jayalakshmi, Karthick and Kavitha obtained anticipatory bail from
this Court and therefore, he did not arrest them.
7. On 20.04.2015, he examined the witnesses Balamurugan and Sub
Inspector Ranjithkumar and recorded their statements. On 06.05.2015, he
recorded the further statement of the Special Sub-Inspector of Police
Chitradevi. On 21.05.2015, he examined the witness Vijayendran and
recorded his statement. On 25.05.2015, he examined the Doctor Govindaraj
and Head Clerk Janaki and recorded their statements. On 01.06.2015, he
examined Rekha and recorded her further statement. On 12.06.2015, he
examined the de facto complainant Rekha, Jayakumar, Papa, and
Nesamuthu Selvi and recorded their further statements. On 14.06.2015, he
altered the sections of the case and forwarded Ex.P23 Alteration Report to
the Court. On the same day, he laid the final report before the Court.
8. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of the said final report and
issued summons to the Accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate had taken
cognizance of the said final report and issued summons to the Accused and
on their appearance, the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution
were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offences
were triable by the Special Court under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, he committed
__________
Page 5 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
the said case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.
9. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, has
taken cognizance of the said case in Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015. On hearing
both sides, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has framed the
charges for the offences under Sections 450, 417, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and
st
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 as against the 1 Accused and
the charges for the offences under Sections 4 of TNPHW Act and Sections
352, 147, 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(x) and 3(2)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA)
Act, 1989 as against the Accused Nos.2 and 4 and the charges for the
offence under Sections 147, 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(PoA) Act, 1989 as against the Accused Nos.3, 5 to 7. The charges were
explained to the Accused, which they denied as false. Therefore, they were
tried by the Trial Court.
10. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined and
Exhibits P1 to P23 were marked. Upon closure of the prosecution side
evidences, the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution
evidence were put to the Accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The
Accused denied them as false and stated that they have witnesses on their
side. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined; however, no
documents were marked through him.
__________
Page 6 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
st
11. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court found the 1 appellant
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and the Accused Nos.2
and 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 352 and 506(ii)
of IPC and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi)
of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and found the Accused Nos.3 and 5 to 7
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 506(ii) of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The learned Trial Judge had
convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows:
Accused
Penal Provision Imprisonment Fine amount
Nos.
A1 417 of IPC One year Simple
Imprisonment
Rs.1,000/- in default of
which to undergo one
month simple
imprisonment
A1 376 (2) (n) of IPC Ten years
Rs.25,000/- in default of
which to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment
rigorous
imprisonment
A1 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(PoA) Act
Ten Years
rigorous
imprisonment
Rs.25,000/- in default of
which to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment
A2 to A7 147 of IPC Two years
simple
imprisonment
Rs.1,000/- in default of
which to undergo two
months simple
imprisonment
A2 to A7 506(ii) of IPC One year simple
imprisonment
Rs.1,000/- in default of
which to undergo one
month simple
imprisonment
__________
Page 7 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
A2 and
A4
352 of IPC Three months
simple
imprisonment
Rs.500/- in default of
which to undergo two
weeks simple
imprisonment
A2 and
A4
4 of TNPHW Act Three years
rigorous
Imprisonment
Rs.10,000/- in default of
which to undergo three
months rigorous
imprisonment
A2 to A7 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Four years
Rigorous
Imprisonment
Rs.5,000/- in default of
which to undergo six
months rigorous
imprisonment
(PoA) Act
A2 and
A4
3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(PoA) Act
Five years
Rigorous
Imprisonment
Rs.5,000/- in default of
which to undergo six
months rigorous
imprisonment
12. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have
preferred the present appeal. Mr.M.Subhash Babu, the learned Senior
Advocate for the appellant was heard, and the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel
for the de facto complainant were also heard. The Trial Court records are
called for and perused.
13. Point for Determination:
Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the
Accused/appellant is sustainable?
Answer:
14. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is the case of
__________
Page 8 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
the prosecution before the Trial Court that the de facto complainant Rekha
belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan Community, a Scheduled Caste. The Accused
belongs to the Hindu Agamudiayar Community, which is neither a
Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe. The de facto complainant and the
first Accused Saravanan had developed a relationship over the phone and
had been in a friendly relationship for about one year. The first Accused had
promised the de facto complainant that he would marry her and trespassed
into the house of the de facto complainant when nobody was at home and
had established forcible sexual intercourse with her several times. When the
parents of the de facto complainant were arranging a bridegroom for her, the
first Accused threatened the de facto complainant that she should marry only
him.
15. It is the further case of the prosecution that the de facto
complainant and the first Accused belonged to different communities.
Therefore, the first Accused induced the de facto complainant to go over to
Tirupur on 15.03.2015. The first Accused solemnized the marriage with the
de facto complainant. Meanwhile, the father of the de facto complainant
lodged a complaint at the Mandalamanickam Police Station regarding a girl
missing.
16. After learning that the de facto complainant was with the first
__________
Page 9 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
Accused, A2, A3 and A4 were proceeded to Tirupur to bring them back in
an Indica car bearing Registration No. TN 38 AB 4944. On 16.03.2015, at
around 11.30 p.m., upon seeing that the de facto complainant was with the
first Accused, they brought both of them in the said car. In transit, Accused
2 and 4 abused the de facto complainant by saying, “ Vz;b gwNjtbah
kfNs cdf;F cau;e;j [hjp GUrd; Nfl;Fjh? ” Accused 2 and 4 also
attacked the de facto complainant and snatched the thali worn by her.
Further, the second Accused threatened the de facto complainant by saying
to kill her. Fearing for her life, the de facto complainant ran on the road. The
Police attached to the Ottanchathiram Police Station found the de facto
complainant and brought her to the Police Station along with the Accused.
They informed the Mandalamanickam Police and handed them over on
17.03.2015.
17. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 18.03.2015, the de
facto complainant and the first Accused were produced before the District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi. The learned Judicial Magistrate
instructed the de facto complainant to take action through the Police. The de
facto complainant and her parents were standing at the Kottaimedu Union
Office bus stop on 18.3.2015 at around 2 p.m. Accused 2 to 7 unlawfully
assembled there, abused the de facto complainant and her family members
in a public place and threatened them. Further, they humiliated the de facto
__________
Page 10 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
complainant and her family members by referring to their caste names.
Therefore, the acts of the first Accused are punishable under Sections 450,
417, and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
Accused 2 and 4 are punishable under Sections 147, 352, and 506(ii) of IPC,
Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 4 of the
TNPHW Act. Accused 3, 5, 6, and 7 are punishable under Sections 147 and
506(ii) of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 4 of the
TNPHW Act.
18. To substantiate the said case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to
PW24 and Exhibits P1 to P23 were marked. On the side of the defence,
DW1 was examined; however, no documents were marked through DW1.
19. On a careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it
is found that the de facto complainant, PW1 Rekha, in her evidence,
deposed that she was residing at Chinna Udappankulam Village, Kamuthi
Taluk, Ramanathapuram District with her parents. She had completed
Teacher Training Course. She was working at Chennai Silks, Kamuthi. She
belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan Community. She knows all the Accused.
They belong to the Hindu Agamudaiyar Servai Community. The Accused
were residing nearby the de facto complainant’s house. She had a good
relationship with the family members of the Accused from her childhood.
__________
Page 11 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
20. PW1 further deposed that the first Accused studied up to B.Sc.
Chemistry. However, he used to go for cooking at marriage houses. The first
Accused compelled her to love him. At that time, the de facto complainant
stated that the first Accused belonged to a different community and she
belonged to a different community. However, the first Accused impressed
upon her by saying that he truly loved her and would definitely marry her.
Therefore, she also agreed to his proposal. He used to come to the shop
where she was working and talk with her. He used to talk with her over the
phone as well. Her mobile number is 99440 41485 and the first Accused's
mobile number is 96291 03656. When her parents went outstation, she
would be alone in her house. During that time, he used to come to her house
and talk with her.
21. PW1 further deposed that one day, when her parents had gone to
Kamuthi, the first Accused promised her that he would marry her without
fail and established a sexual relationship with her forcibly. Thereafter, he
established a sexual relationship with her several times. Her sister-in-law,
Nesamuthu Selvi, came to know about this and informed the de facto
complainant’s parents. Her parents called the first Accused and asked him
about this. The first Accused informed her parents that he would definitely
marry the de facto complainant. The victim's parents informed him that it
__________
Page 12 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
would not work out and that they were therefore objecting to the marriage
between the victim and the first Accused. Even thereafter, the de facto
complainant and the first Accused continued to talk with each other. Her
parents were looking for marriage proposals from others.
22. PW1 further deposed that on 14.03.2015, the bridegroom came to
see her for the purpose of marriage. On 15.03.2015, the first Accused called
her over the phone and questioned her as to whether the bridegroom had
come to see her. She informed him that he should come and seek the bride.
The first Accused asked her to come to Tiruppur immediately; otherwise, he
would reveal the relationship between him and the de facto complainant to
the family members of the bridegroom. Further, he threatened her by saying
that he would commit suicide.
23. PW1 further deposed that on 15.03.2015, in the afternoon, she left
her house. On 16.03.2015, the first Accused and the de facto complainant
got married with the help of the first Accused's friend, Kannan and one
sister at a temple in Tiruppur. Her father lodged a complaint at
Mandalamanikam Police Station regarding the girl missing.
24. PW1 further deposed that on 17.03.2015, the first Accused brother
Karthik, father Sonaimuthu and Ayyanar came to Tiruppur. Before that first
night between the de facto complainant and the first Accused was over.
__________
Page 13 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
They brought the first Accused and the de facto complainant from Tiruppur
by car. On the way, they stopped the car at one place and abused her by
saying the words, " gwj; Njtbah cdf;F cau;e;j [hjp GUrd;
and attacked her inside the car. The first Accused brother Karthik
Nfl;Fjh ’’
and his father attacked the de facto complainant. Both of them snatched her
thali. The first Accused's father told them, “ Njtbah kfNs
nfhy;Yq;flh ”.
25. PW1 further deposed that immediately, she became afraid for her
life and ran onto the road. This incident happened near Ottanchatram. On
seeing her running, the local people informed the Ottanchatram Police. The
Ottanchatram Police came there and took the de facto complainant, her
husband/first Accused, his father Sonaimuthu, his brother Karthik and
Ayyanar to the Police Station. They informed their parents, who rushed to
the Ottanchatram Police Station. On the same day, they were brought to the
Mandalamanikam Police Station. The de facto complainant was kept at All
Women Police Station, Kamuthi. The first Accused was kept at
Mandalamanikam Police Station.
26. PW1 further deposed that on 18.03.2015, the de facto complainant
was produced before the Kamuthi Court. The learned Magistrate examined
both of them. The first Accused informed the Magistrate that there was no
__________
Page 14 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
proof of their marriage and asked her to take steps. Therefore, her parents
and brother were standing at the Kamuthi Union Office bus stand to proceed
to her village. At that time, the first Accused's father Sonaimuthu, her
brother Saravanan, her mother Jeyalakshmi, sister Kavitha, one Pandi,
S/o.Angappan, Ayyanar S/o.Kamatchi, came there and abused her by saying
Vz;b gwj;Njtbah eP Nky; eltbf;if vLj;jpq;fs;dh FLk;gj;NjhL
‘’
nfhSj;jptpLNthk; ’’ .
27. PW1 further deposed that on the next day, she lodged Ex.P1
complaint with the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. She was forwarded
to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for medical examination.
During the medical examination, it was found that she was three months
pregnant. Her parents took her to their house. After three months, she
experienced pain and bleeding. She informed the same to the All Women
Police Station, Kamuthi. They informed the Additional Superintendent of
Police. They again forwarded her to Ramanathapuram for medical
examination. The Doctor informed her that her pregnancy had been aborted.
Thereafter, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai. She gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. to the
learned Judicial Magistrate, which was marked as Ex.P2.
28. PW2, Pappa is the mother of the de facto complainant. She, in her
evidence, deposed that the Accused were their neighbours. She came to
__________
Page 15 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
know that her daughter and the first Accused were in a relationship.
Immediately, they started looking for a bridegroom for their daughter. The
de facto complainant eloped on the next day. They searched for her in all
places. They lodged a complaint at the Mandalamanikam Police Station.
29. PW2 further deposed that after the Police informed them that their
daughter had been secured and kept at Ottanchathiram Police Station, both
of them went to the Ottanchathiram Police Station and asked their daughter
why she had done this. The Police informed them that she had gone on her
own accord. They asked them to take both of them. Both of them were
brought to the Kamuthi Police Station. Their daughter was kept at the All
Women Police Station, Kamuthi and the first Accused was kept at another
Police Station. Both of them were taken to the Court. In Court, the learned
Magistrate questioned her daughter as to whether there was any proof of the
marriage. Since the thali had been snatched at Ottanchatram, she reported
that there was no proof of the marriage. She was sent to the hospital.
Thereafter, the learned Judge instructed them to take further action.
30. PW2 further deposed that they proceeded and stood at Kottaimedu
Union bus stand, Kamuthi. At that time, the Accused came there and abused
them by saying, gw [hjp eha;q;f> cq;fSf;F cau;e;j [hjp
khg;gps;is Nfl;Fjh?. Further, they threatened them. There, Muthu and
__________
Page 16 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
Bhoomi intervened and prevented further quarrelling.
31. PW2 further deposed that the Additional Superintendent of Police
received the complaint from her daughter and interrogated PW2 at the
Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. After the medical examination,
they were informed that her daughter was pregnant. Thereafter, she had
heavy bleeding and therefore, they informed the Additional Superintendent
of Police. He forwarded the de facto complainant to the Government
Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for a medical check-up again. On examination,
the Doctor informed them that her pregnancy had been aborted. Her
daughter was with her.
32. PW3 Jayakumar, the father of the de facto complainant deposed in
line with PW2. PW4 Senthil Kumar is the brother of the de facto
complainant/PW1. He also deposed in line with PW2 and PW3. PW5
Nesamuthu Selvi, is the sister-in-law of PW1. She also deposed in line with
PW2 to PW4.
33. PW6 Bhoomiyammal, spoke about the incident that happened at
Kottaimedu bus stand, Kamuthi. According to her, the Accused were
standing at the bus stop. They picked a quarrel with Jayakumar, Paappa,
Senthilkumar and Rekha. At that time, they abused them by saying, gw
eha;fsh mtu;fis vupj;Jtpl Ntz;Lk;.
__________
Page 17 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
34. PW7 Valarmathi has spoken that she had seen the de facto
complainant and the first Accused frequently travelling on a motorcycle.
She had seen the de facto complainant and the first Accused talking at a
Jawuli shop in Kamuthi. When she enquired with the de facto complainant,
she informed her that she had been talking with the first Accused for the past
one year. At that time, PW7 stated that both of them belonged to different
communities. Further, the de facto complainant informed her that they had a
sexual relationship and that the first Accused had promised to marry her.
35. PW8 Selvaraj is the witness to the Observation mahazar. He has
spoken about the preparation of Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar. PW9
Naganathan, Tahsildar, Kamuthi, deposed in his evidence that he had issued
Ex.P4 Community Certificate to the de facto complainant. As per Ex.P4
community certificate, the de facto complainant belongs to the Hindu
Paraiyan Community.
36. PW10 Tmt.Indra, Grade I Police Constable, is the one who
produced the de facto complainant for medical examination at the
Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. PW11 Tmt.Manikkavalli, Grade I
Police Constable, Kamuthi, is the one who had taken the victim for medical
examination on 20.03.2015. She produced the victim before the Kamuthi
Court on 23.02.2015. PW12 Rajendran, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
__________
Page 18 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
escorted the Accused for medical examination at the Government Hospital,
Ramanathapuram on 24.03.2015 at around 19:40 hours.
37. PW13 Balamurugan is the driver of the vehicle. He deposed that,
as requested by the second Accused, he had taken Accused 1 and 2 to
Tiruppur. Further, he had brought the first Accused and one woman from
Tiruppur to the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. PW14 Mr. Ethiraj,
Head Constable 309, is the one who produced the first Accused, Saravanan,
for medical examination on 23.03.2015.
38. PW15 Tmt.Bhackiyajothi, Woman Head Constable, produced the
victim before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, for recording
her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. PW16 A.Ranjithkumar, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Ottanchatram Police Station, deposed that on
17.03.2015, at around 11.30 a.m., while he was at the Ottanchatram Police
Station, the de facto complainant and the Accused were brought to the
Police Station by the Police. They informed him that the de facto
complainant had married the first Accused at Tiruppur and that, upon
hearing this news, the first Accused's elder brother, Karthik, had threatened
her, causing the de facto complainant to run away from there. He enquired
into the matter, informed the Mandalamanikam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District and handed them over to Special Sub-Inspector of
__________
Page 19 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
Police Karuppaiya and Woman Head Constable Thenmozhi.
39. PW17 Vijayendran, Scientific Officer, deposed that on 13.04.2015,
he received samples from the Court. He issued Ex.P5 Biological Report,
stating that no semen was found in the vaginal smear, cervical smear,
vaginal swab, or cervical swab. Further, he issued Ex.P6 serological report,
stating that the blood group of the de facto complainant was B group. The
test results relating to the saliva sample and semen sample were
inconclusive.
40. PW18 Dr.Sivanandhavalli, is the Doctor, who examined the de
facto complainant on 20.03.2015. She issued Ex.P7 certificate, stating that
the de facto complainant was fit to have sexual intercourse. She had lost her
virginity and her hymen was not intact. There were no signs of recent
intercourse. Her blood group was ‘B’ positive. The de facto complainant
was forwarded for forensic examination to ascertain her age. Her blood,
saliva, cervical smear and vaginal smear were collected. No injury was
found on her private parts. The de facto complainant was admitted for the
second time. At that time, the Doctor was asked to answer the question of
whether the de facto complainant was pregnant. She reported that the test
conducted showed that her pregnancy was positive. In response to the
question of whether the de facto complainant was still pregnant or had
__________
Page 20 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
aborted, she replied that the victim was not pregnant and that she had an
abortion. In this connection, she issued Ex.P8 certificate.
41. PW19 Dr.Rajkumar issued Ex.P9 age certificate to the first
Accused, stating that he was above 22 years of age. PW20 Ammalorpava
Jeyarani, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kamuthi, deposed in her evidence that the
Accused belonged to the Hindu Agamudaiyar Community. In this
connection, she issued Ex.P10 to P16 certificates. PW21, Janaki, is the one
who made a requisition to the Court for the medical examination of the
Accused.
42. PW22, Tmt.Chithradevi, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the
First Information Report based on the complaint given by the de facto
complainant. PW23 Dr.Govindaraj, conducted a medical examination of the
first Accused on 23.03.2015 and issued Ex.P8 opinion, stating that there is
nothing to suggest that the Accused was impotent.
43. PW24 Mr.Sekar Dhesmukh, the Investigating Officer, has spoken
about the investigation conducted by him, the arrest of the Accused, the
medical examination of the first Accused and the filing of the final report
before the Court.
44. On a careful perusal of the evidence produced on the side of the
__________
Page 21 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
prosecution, it is found that the sexual offences are said to have occurred on
various dates. The occurrence involving the snatching of the thali is said to
have happened on 17.03.2015 and the occurrence involving the abuse by the
Accused is said to have happened on 18.03.2015 at Kottaimedu bus stop.
Except for the last occurrence, there are no eyewitnesses to the other
occurrences, except the de facto complainant.
45. From the evidence of PW1, it is found that she was aged about 24
years on the date of the examination before the Court. She has not stated her
age as on the date of the occurrence. However, as per Ex.P7, it is found that
a radiological examination was conducted on the victim to ascertain her age.
However, the said radiological report was not produced before the Trial
Court. It is not the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant was
a child at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 is an
adult as on the date of occurrence.
46. Upon a careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is found that she
has not specified the date on which the first intercourse occurred. It is her
evidence that one day, when her parents had gone to Kamuthi, the Accused
herein promised her that he would marry her and established a sexual
relationship with her and thereafter, they had physical relationships several
times. The evidence of PW1 makes it very clear that she was aware of the
__________
Page 22 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
fact that she belonged to the Hindu Paraiyan community and the Accused
belonged to the Hindu Agamudaiyar community. Due to the caste
differences, the marriage of the de facto complainant and the first Accused
was opposed. Despite that, in view of the promise made by the first Accused
that he would marry her, she also consented to the relationship. The
evidence of the victim clearly discloses that they had a sexual relationship
out of deep love.
47. The evidence of the de facto complainant further reveals that the
relationship came to the knowledge of her sister-in-law, PW5 Nesamuthu
Selvi. Despite that they continued their relationship. The evidence of PW1
further reveals that the parents of the de facto complainant had arranged a
marriage proposal for PW1 with another person from Vilathikulam, which
she informed to the first Accused. Immediately, the first Accused called her
to Tiruppur and married her with the help of his friend, Kannan and one
sister. From the above evidence, it is clear that the first Accused fulfilled his
promise to marry her and that he had no deceptive intention at the time of
his relationship with PW1. Therefore, the offence under Sections 417 of the
IPC is not proved.
48. Further, the victim was an adult and she consented to a sexual
relationship with the first Accused on the promise of marriage. Therefore,
__________
Page 23 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
the said consent cannot be said to have been obtained through fear or
misconception. The de facto complainant had know the consequences of
establishing a sexual relationship even before the marriage. She admitted the
same in her cross-examination. Despite that being in love with the first
Accused, she established a physical relationship with him. Therefore, the
offence under Section 376 (2) (n) would not be attracted in this case as it is a
case of consensual relationship.
49. Further, from her evidence, it is found that on 16.03.2015, the first
Accused married her at Tiruppur and thereafter, they established a physical
relationship. As per Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC, establishing a sexual
relationship with wife not being a minor would not come under the offence
of rape. Therefore, the charge under Section 376(2)(n) is also not proved
against the first Accused.
50. The charge under Section 450 of the IPC is to the effect that the
first Accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant for
having a sexual relationship with her. As stated supra, the sexual
relationship was established only with the consent of PW1. Since PW1 and
the first Accused were in love, their having a sexual relationship even before
marriage is not an offence and the pre marital sex is not prohibited by the
law of the land. Hence, the offence under Section 450 would also not be
__________
Page 24 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
attracted in this case.
51. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 16.03.2015, at
around 11.30 p.m., Accused Nos. 2 and 4 proceeded to Tiruppur and
brought PW1 and the first Accused in the car. In transit, when they reached
near Ottanchatram, Accused Nos.2 and 4 threatened PW1 and snatched her
thali inside the car. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant
brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of PW13, the driver who had
driven the said car. Balamurugan is the driver who drove the car at the
request of the second Accused. According to him, he had taken Accused
Nos.1 and 2 to Tiruppur and dropped them at the New Bus Stand, Tiruppur.
Further, he brought the first Accused and the woman to the All Women
Police Station, Kamuthi. From the evidence of PW13, it is found that only
the first Accused and PW1 returned from Tiruppur in the said car. Though
PW13 did not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution did not
treat him as hostile. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 completely negates
the occurrence said to have happened at Ottanchatram inside the car.
52. Further, in respect of the occurrence said to have happened at
Ottanchatram, the prosecution examined PW16 Ranjithkumar. PW16 also,
in his evidence, did not state that the Accused herein had snatched her thali.
His evidence is hearsay. According to him, the first Accused and PW1 were
__________
Page 25 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
brought to the Ottanchatram Police Station by the Police and he handed
them over to the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Karuppaiya and Woman
Head Constable Thenmozhi. PW16 did not speak about the presence of
Accused Nos.2 and 4. Therefore, the presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in
the car is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the charges
against them under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Woman Act and Section 352 IPC are not proved.
53. According to the prosecution, on 18.03.2015, Accused Nos. 2 to 7
unlawfully assembled at the Kottaimedu Union Office bus stop and abused
the de facto complainant, her parents and her brother and intimidated them.
In this regard, PW1 to PW4 had spoken about the said occurrence. Even as
per the case of the prosecution, PW5 Nesa Muthuselvi was not present at the
scene of crime. Therefore, her evidence is only hearsay.
54. PW6 is one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, on
careful perusal of the evidence of PW6, it is found that she has not specified
who was present at the scene of crime and who abused the de facto
complainant, her parents and her brother. According to her, the Accused
were present and quarrelled with them. It was not brought on record as to
who was present at the scene of crime on the date of examination of the said
witness before the Court. Therefore, her evidence also does not support the
__________
Page 26 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
case of the prosecution.
55. According to PW1, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 abused her, her parents,
and her brother by saying, Vz;b gwj;Njtbah eP Nky; eltbf;if
‘’
. According to PW2, the
vLj;jpq;fs;dh FLk;gj;NjhL nfhSj;jptpLNthk; ’’
mother of PW1, all the Accused abused them by saying, gw [hjp eha;q;f>
. According to PW3,
cq;fSf;F cau;e;j [hjp khg;gps;is Nfl;Fjh?
the father of PW1, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 followed them to the bus stop and
Accused Pandi threatened them by saying, ,dpNky ; Nfhu;l;bw;F
NghdPu;fs ; vd;why ; cq;fis tPl;bw;F cs;NsNa ntl;b Gijj;J
nfhOj;jp tpLNthk; . Further, the Accused Kavitha attacked them with a
chappal. According to PW4, the brother of PW1, all the Accused followed
them and abused them by saying ePq;fs; NghyPrpw;F NghdPu;fs; vd;why;
gweha;fsh cq;fis tPl;Nlhl nfhOj;jptpLNthk;.
56. On a careful perusal of the above evidence, it is found that the
evidence of the witnesses is found to be contradictory with regard to the
words employed by the Accused herein. Further, the evidence of prosecution
witnesses PW1 to PW4 cannot be believed for the simple reason that all the
Accused A2 to A7 could not have abused them with the same words at the
same time in a unison. Therefore, the alleged abuses and utterances said to
have been made by Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are not proved beyond all
reasonable doubt.
__________
Page 27 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
57. Apart from that, as per Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the
offence should have happened in public view. None of the witnesses have
spoken about the said utterances having been made in the presence of the
public and therefore, causing humiliation to them through those utterances.
Therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act are
also not proved.
58. Apart from that, on a careful perusal of the evidence projected on
the side of the prosecution, it is found that the de facto complainant had
proceeded to Tiruppur on 15.03.2015. Thereafter, PW3 is said to have given
a girl-missing complaint before the Mandalamanikam Police Station on
16.03.2015. However, the said complaint was not produced before the trial
Court.
59. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the
first Accused and PW1 were produced before the Kamuthi All Women
Police Station and Mandalamanikam Police Station respectively and
subsequently produced before the Court, wherein the Magistrate is said to
have conducted an enquiry. The said proceedings were not produced before
the Trial Court to show what transpired during the enquiry conducted by the
learned Magistrate insofar as the offence said to have occurred at
Ottanchathiram.
__________
Page 28 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
60. Though PW16 has stated that PW1 and the first Accused were
produced before him to prove the interrogation conducted at the
Ottanchathiram Police Station, the station diary and CSR were not recorded
or produced. According to the prosecution witnesses, the parents of PW1
had gone to Ottanchathiram and brought PW1. PW16, in his evidence,
deposed that he had handed over PW1 and the first Accused to the Police
belonging to the Mandalamanikam Police Station. Therefore, the entire case
of the prosecution is bristles with many contradictions. The cumulative
reading of the evidenced projected on the side of prosecution does not lend
credence to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court is constrained
to record the order of acquittal as against the Accused in respect of all the
offences charged.
61. In the result, these appeals are Allowed. The conviction and
sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court in
Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015 dated 22.01.2019 as against the appellants is set
aside. The bail bonds executed by the appellants are discharged. The fine
amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded to the appellants.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
__________
Page 29 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Indu
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
All Women Police Station, Kamuthi,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-Delivery Judgment in
CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019
04-11-2026
__________
Page 30 of 30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 02:48:21 pm )