(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 in S.C.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. The sole appellant has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Pudukottai, in SC No.3 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022, wherein, he was convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
| Offences for which convicted (IPC) | Sentenced to undergo |
| 294(b) | Three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment |
| 417 | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months |
| 367(1) | Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment |
| 506(I) | Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment |
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 and the appellant had a love affair and both of them were aged about 20 years at the relevant point of time. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant promised to marry PW1 and he started moving closely with PW1. From the month of August 2020 to the month of October 2020, the appellant is said to have made phone calls to PW1 during night hours and took PW1 in a two wheeler to some remote place and on the promise to marry her, compelled to have sexual intercourse and this was happening regularly.
3. During January 2021, PW1 came to know that she has become pregnant and she called the appellant and informed him and asked him to marry her. The appellant is said to have avoided PW1 and also switched off his mobile phone. During July 2021, PW1 got admitted at SRM Hospital, Chengalpattu and delivered a boy child. After delivering the child and returning back home, once again PW1 called the appellant and requested him to marry her. The appellant, apart from refusing to marry, is said to have abused her in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. It is under these circumstances PW1 gave a complaint Ex.P1 to PW6 on 27.09.2021, based on which, an FIR (Ex.P6) came to be registered in Crime No.16 of 2021 for offence under Sections 294(b), 376 and 506(I) IPC.
4. The investigation was taken over by PW7, who went to the scene of crime on 27.09.2021 at about 5.00 p.m. and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW3 and also prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P3) and the rough sketch (Ex.P7). PW7 arrested the appellant on 27.09.2021 at about 18.00 hrs. and the appellant was remanded to judicial custody.
5. The investigation was taken over by PW8 and steps were taken to record the statement of PW1 under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and the same was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P2). Requisition was made for conducting medical examination of the appellant. The examination was conducted by PW5, who issued the certificate marked as Ex.P5. On 06.10.2021, PW8 gave a requisition letter for obtaining FTA card from the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and on 07.10.2021, the FTA card was obtained. On 22.10.2021, the blood samples of the appellant, PW1 and the child born to PW1 were extracted at Government Hospital, Pudukottai and it was sent for DNA test.
6. PW8 recorded the statement of other witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and filed an alternation report (Ex.P8) altering the provisions to Sections 294(b), 376(1), 417 and 506(I) IPC. After collecting the DNA report (Ex.P9), the police report came to be laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur and it was taken on file in PRC No.14 of 2021. After serving copies under Section 207, the case was committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C., and it was made over to the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai. It was taken on file in SC No. 3 of 2022.
7. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 376(1), 417, 294(b) and 506(I) IPC and when the appellant was questioned, he denied the charges.
8. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
9. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the appellant when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C. and he denied the same and also stated that he had defence witnesses to be examined. Accordingly he examined DW1 and DW2 on the side of the defence.
10. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.
11. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
12. The main ground that was urged on the side of the appellant is that it is a clear case of consensual relationship between the appellant and PW1 and both of them were almost of the same age and that for some reasons, the relationship got snapped. In such a scenario, no criminal offence has been made out against the appellant. It is further submitted that the trial Court entirely placed reliance upon DNA report, whereas, there was a huge delay from the extraction of the blood sample upto conducting the DNA analysis and chain of custody has not been properly explained.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for State submitted that the evidence of PW1, who is the victim in this case, is wholly reliable and the same has not been discredited in the cross-examination. The DNA report was only a corroborating piece of evidence and even in the absence of the same, the conviction and sentence can be sustained with the evidence of PW1. It is submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
14. This court has carefully considered the submissions and the materials available on record.
15. PW1 in her evidence has specifically stated that she had a love affair with the appellant and she also regularly had sexual intercourse with the appellant. Even in the accident register marked as Ex.P4, it has been recorded that PW1 had contact with a known person 'with her consent'. The same has been reiterated while recording her statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that two adults had entered into a relationship and had physical contact with a clear consent and by no stretch, it can be construed as a consent given under a misconception of fact. The law is well settled in this regard and useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2024 (4) MLJ (crl.) 578.
16. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the charge for offence under Section 376(1) IPC has not been made out against the appellant.
17. Even though an attempt was made on the side of the appellant to disown the child born out of this relationship by pointing out to some discrepancy in the DNA report (Ex.P9), it is quite clear that the DNA report had not been discredited in any manner and it is apparent that the appellant is the father of the male child born to PW1.
18. The evidence of PW1 demonstrates the fact that initially the appellant and PW1 wanted to marry but for some reason, the relationship got snapped.
19. PW1 had delivered a child in the year 2021 and the marriage was not going through and the Court has to assess the case from the stand point view of PW1. Obviously PW1 wanted to marry the appellant and the appellant refused to marry her. Even though this Court has held that the charge of rape has not been made out by the prosecution. Certainly, the appellant has cheated PW1 on the aspect of marriage. To that extent, there is an element of fraudulent representation by the appellant to PW1 with a dishonest intention and going by the conduct of PW1, her physical relationship with the appellant was also with a hope/belief that the appellant will marry at some time in future and on the existence of this fact, being proved on the side of the prosecution, the intention of the appellant has also been proved by the prosecution regard being had in the common course of human conduct.
20. In the light of the above discussions, this Court holds that the charge under Section 417 IPC has been made out against the appellant.
21. Insofar as the charges under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC except for the ipse dixit of PW1, there is no other evidence available to sustain these charges. Hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal from both these charges.
22. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 417 IPC against the appellant and insofar as all the other charges are concerned, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
23. The next issue is regarding the sentence to be imposed against the appellant for conviction under Section 417 IPC. The trial Court has imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.50,000/- fine and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. This Court is inclined to modify the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant and to impose payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only), which can be withdrawn by PW1. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant to the credit of SC No.3/2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukottai, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and on such deposit, the respondent police shall intimate PW1, who shall be permitted by the trial Court to withdraw the compensation amount.
24. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed in part in the above terms.
25. Post this criminal appeal for reporting compliance on 13.07.2026.