Madras High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the convict to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by an order passed by the District Mahila Sessions Court, under which the Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the convict for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 450 and 506(i) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), N. Seshasayee, J. acquitted the rape convict after the victim ended up having a second child with him months after they were sent to mediation for a solution regarding the upbringing of the first child. Further, the Court further said that, in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there indeed was a crime. In fact, there is an abuse of judicial process when the victim set the criminal law in motion, perhaps with a false FIR.
Background:
The convict was a distant relative of the victim and was living in her neighbourhood. In 2012, the convict entered the victim’s house and forced himself upon her and committed rape under intimidation. The FIR was registered after the victim has begotten a child. Post trial, on appreciating the evidence before it, the Trial Court found the convict guilty of all the charges laid against him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine for offence under Section 450 IPC, 10 years for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and fine, and for 1 year for offence under Section 506(i) IPC.
The convict submitted that the victim in her cross examination disclosed that she has been having physical relationship with the convict multiple times over a period, but she has never raised any objection at any time. Indeed, she did not level any accusation against the convict till she begotten a child. Significantly, the victim was an adult, and she knew or at least ought to know what she was engaging in. The Trial Court, however, overlooked this part of the cross examination.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court took note of the medical evidence and the age certificate, as per which the victim at the relevant time was anywhere between 20 and 22 years. Further, as per the DNA test report, the child born to the victim was born to her through the convict.
The Court also noted that when the appeal was preferred, the Court tried to find what best could be done to the child born to the victim through the convict, thus it referred the matter to mediation. The result of the mediation was not a solution for the child that was already born, but on the contrary ended up with them having a second child.
The Court further took note of the birth certificate of the second child born to the convict and the victim.
The Court remarked that there are no rules in love and war and this case perhaps stands as a testimony to this statement. The Court further added that neither prosecution nor conviction separated the victim and the convict.
The Court further said that, in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there indeed was a crime. In fact, there is an abuse of judicial process when the victim set the criminal law in motion, perhaps with a false FIR. But then, that is a story of the past and this Court does not intend to revisit the issue.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the convict and acquitted the convict of all the charges levelled against him.
[G. Selvam v. The State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3965, decided on 07-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: R.Ragavendran , Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. C.E.Pratap , Government Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
