Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 25.11.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

Senthil @ Senthilkumar ... Appellant

Vs.

1.State rep. by

Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Tiruchengode Sub Division,

Namakkal District.

2.State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Molasi Police Station,

Namakkal District.

(Crime No.134 of 2013)

3.Chellammal ... Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the

records and set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated

03.11.2020 made in S.C.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for

SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal.

Page No.1 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

For Appellant: Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar

For R1 & R2 : Ms.J.R.Archana

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R3 : Mr.Vrindha

Legal Aid Counsel

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in

S.C.No.66 of 2015 dated 03.11.2020 on the file of the learned Sessions

Judge, Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal.

2.The appellant/accused in S.C.No.66 of 2015 was convicted by the

Trial Court by judgment dated 03.11.2020 and sentenced him to undergo ten

years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) r/w. 511

IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the

offence under Section 451 IPC and the sentences to run concurrently.

3.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 was

residing in a line house in Manakattar Thottam at Manakkadu, Palur Village

and she belongs to Arunthathiyar Community listed under Scheduled Caste.

Page No.2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

The appellant/accused is a resident of Velliyampalayam and he belongs to

Vettuva Gounder Community listed under Most Backward Class. The

victim's husband working as a Driver in a Water Scheme and used to go to

work at night. Taking advantage of victim loneliness, the appellant/accused,

decided to exploit the victim sexually. On the intervening night of

05/06.09.2013 at about 1.00 a.m., when the victim was alone, the accused

forcibly entered the house of the victim, committed house trespass with an

intent to commit rape and forcibly had sexual intercourse against victim

wish without any concern, by gagging her mouth with his hands and also

intimidated her that she would be done away if she shouted or raised any

alarm. The appellant abused her by calling her caste name. The victim was

in a state of shock, kept to herself for a day and out of fear, she had not

immediately reacted. When her body pain became unbearable, she went to

the daughter-in-law/PW2 house and disclosed the act of the accused. PW2

took the victim to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode where she was

given treatment, information sent to the respondent police from the Hospital.

PW10/Sub-Inspector of Police visited the Hospital, recorded the statement

of PW1/victim, who admitted the same and kept her left thumb impression.

Thereafter, FIR/Ex.P12 in Crime No.134 of 2013 registered. On the orders

Page No.3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

of the Superintendent of Police, the FIR was placed to PW11/Deputy

Superintendent of Police for further investigation. In the meanwhile, the

victim was referred to Government Hospital, Salem for further examination

and treatment. PW11 took up investigation. On 08.09.2013 at about 6:30

a.m., PW11 visited the scene of the occurrence, prepared observation

mahazar/Ex.P14 and rough sketch/Ex.P15 in presence of witnesses,

examined witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence and collected

inner garments, saree and blouse from the victim viz., MO1 to MO3, under

the cover of seizure mahazar/Ex.P16. The appellant/accused was arrested on

08.09.2013. PW9/Doctor examined the appellant/accused and issued a

Potency certificate/Ex.P11. PW8/Doctor attached to Government Hospital,

Salem further examined the victim and gave her opinion/Ex.P10. The

medical records/Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 marked in this case and the statements of

witnesses recorded. PW5/Deputy Tahsildar issued community certificate to

the accused which is marked as Ex.P4 confirming he belongs to Most

Backward Class and issued Ex.P5/community certificate to the victim,

confirming she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On conclusion of

investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, PW1 to PW11 examined,

Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 marked and MO1 to MO3 produced on the side of

Page No.4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

prosecution. On the side of defence, no witness examined and no documents

marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant

and sentenced him as stated above. Against which, the present appeal filed.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the

appellant a politician, attached to a political party and had political rivalry

with one Chinnasamy, under whom PW1/victim was employed. Due to the

political rivalry, using PW1 the appellant falsely implicated in this case.

Few months before the incident, the appellant met with an accident, he was

unconscious and bedridden which is admitted by the victim. It is also

admitted by the victim that the appellant was owning lands and people

belonging to Scheduled caste community working in his fields and the

appellant had no issues with them. The victim further admits that there was a

village panchayat held in the Church and the appellant denied the incident.

This explanation is given to get over the delay in lodging the complaint.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place during the midnight

and early hours between 05.09.2013 and 06.09.2013, but the complaint was

given only on 07.09.2013. He would submit that PW1 as well as the

Investigating officer admits that the victim was staying in an asbestos roofed

Page No.5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

house and it was a row house, there are others residing in the same row and

no neighbors noticed or complained about the incident. The victim on the

next day went to her daughter-in-law's house at Velliyampalayam and

informed the incident which is highly artificial and defies normal human

conduct. PW7/Doctor examined the victim on 07.09.2013 at about 5:30 p.m.

The Doctor records that on the request of the Inspector of Police, in Crime

No.134 of 2013 the victim was examined to determine whether she was

subjected to rape or not, but in Ex.P1/complaint it is projected as though

PW10/Sub-Inspector of police went to the hospital where he recorded the

statement of the victim/PW1. Had the statement had been recorded in the

Hospital, then it should have been in the presence of PW7/Doctor and the

statement should have been attested by PW7. On the contrary, PW7 states

that at the request of the Police, she examined the victim. Hence, the

foundational fact becomes doubtful and shaky. He further submitted that

PW7 confirms that she noticed a simple injury in the private parts and issued

Ex.P8/Accident Register, further she collected pubic hair and sent it for

forensic examination. In the forensic report/Ex.P7, it is recorded that no

spermatozoa found. He further submitted that PW8/Doctor who examined

the victim given a report/Ex.P10, which is on the back side of Ex.P7 that

Page No.6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

there could have been possibility of sexual assault, which is without medical

reasoning. In Ex.P9/Accident Register, it is recorded abrasion over

fourchette, other than that, there are no other injuries of any sort. PW7

admits that this type of injury is a natural occurrence and thus, ruling out that

there was any forcible penetration. Further, there is doubt in the manner in

which MO1 to MO3 seized. PW1's evidence is that MO1 to MO3 seized

from her house. PW3, son of PW1 who is the witness for the seizure

mahazar/EX.P16 who identified his signature in the seizure mahazar where

it is recorded that the dress articles MO1 to MO3 collected on 08.09.2013 at

about 11.00 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode. Hence, there

are contradictions and serious doubt as to where MO1 to MO3 seized.

Further in the forensic report/Ex.P6, it is seen that no semen detected in

MO1 to MO3. In this case, PW11/Investigating Officer referring to

Observation mahazar/Ex.P14 and rough sketch/Ex.P15 confirms that the

victim was residing in a row house with asbestos sheets. There are totally

five houses in the row and hence any sound or unusual movement made in

one house can be felt and heard by the neighbors. In this case, none of the

neighbors uttered anything about the incident. Ex.P10 is the opinion of

PW8/Doctor, which is on the reverse side of Ex.P7/forensic report and

Page No.7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

victim not examined clinically and hence this report is without any medical

reasoning. From the above, it is clear that the foundational fact becomes

shaky and doubtful. There is some political animosity against the appellant.

The Trial Court found that no rape committed but convicted the appellant for

attempt to rape and trespassing into the house of victim. In this case, PW1

admits that the door was locked from inside and there is no possibility to

open the door from outside. These vital facts not considered by the Trial

Court. Hence, prayed for acquittal.

5.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant

relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aman Kumar and

another vs. State of Haryana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379, wherein it is

held that the version of the victim cannot be accepted on its face value and

the Court may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would

lend assurance to her testimony. He further relied upon the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Krishna alias Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka

reported in (2014) 15 SCC 596 and the decision of this Court in the case of

Pazhani vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2019 SCC

Online Mad 27046.

Page No.8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the

contention of the appellant and submitted that in this case, PW1 is aged

about 55 years, who belongs to the Arunthudiyar community, listed under

Schedule Caste. Her husband employed as a Driver in a Water Scheme and

his work was during night hours. Taking advantage of his absence and the

victim's loneliness, the appellant who belongs to Most Backward Class,

forcibly entered the victim's house and committed rape. When she attempted

to raise alarm, her mouth was shut and the appellant threatened her and

abused her by calling her caste name. Due to the shock, the victim could not

immediately react and on the next day, she felt severe pain all over her body.

Unable to bear the pain, she went to her daughter-in-law's house at

Veliyampalayam and informed the incident. Thereafter, PW2/daughter-in-

law, took the victim to the Government Hospital Thiruchengodu and from

hospital, information sent to the respondent police. PW10 visited the

Hospital, recorded the statement of PW1 and took her thumb impression.

Finding that the offence involves SC/ST Act, he placed the FIR before the

Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police

took up investigation on the authorization of the Superintendent of Police

Page No.9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

visited the scene of occurrence on 08.09.2013, prepared observation

mahazar and rough sketch in presence of witnesses and thereafter recorded

the statements of witness and victim’s daughter-in-law. In the meanwhile,

PW7/Casualty Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengodu

conducted physical and clinical examination of the victim, collected pubic

hairs, swabs and sent for forensic examination. Thereafter, the victim was

sent to a Gynecologist at Government Hospital, Salem. PW8/Doctor

attached to Government Hospital, Salem examined her. PW7 and PW8

issued Accident Registers/Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. In both Accident Registers, it is

recorded that 1cm simple bruise injury found in the victim's private part.

PW8/Doctor gave opinion/Ex.P10 confirming the possibility of sexual

assault. The community certificates of the victim and the appellant collected

and thereafter, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. In this

case, all witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 informed her

daughter-in-law/PW2 and thereafter, the entire case unfolded, clearly

recorded by PW11. On the evidence of the witnesses and medical and other

records, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence prayed for

dismissal.

Page No.10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

7.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/third

respondent opposed the appellant's contention and submitted that the victim

belongs to Arunthathiyar community listed under Scheduled Caste and she

was staying alone. The accused belonging to Most Backward Class, having a

dominant position over the victim, forcibly entered the victim's house and

committed sexual assault. She was in shock, a state of unable to react

immediately, after gaining strength, suffering unbearable pain, she informed

her daughter-in-law/PW2, who took her to the Hospital and thereafter,

complaint lodged. The victim's medical examination by PW7 and PW8

confirms injuries on the victim's private parts. The Trial Court considering

the evidence and medical records, rightly convicted the appellant. Hence

prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it

is seen that PW1/victim admits that the door was locked from inside and she

was staying in a row house with asbestos sheet covering. It is not in doubt

that any unusual sound or movement at 1:00 a.m. in the middle of the night

would definitely gain attention of the neighbors. But none of the neighbors

stated anything with regard to the occurrence proper. The only witness is

Page No.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

PW1. The victim/PW1 admits that the house was locked from inside, how it

was unlocked and how the appellant gained entry, there is no evidence. Even

in the observation mahazar, there is no reference to the lock. PW7/Casualty

Doctor at Government Hospital, Tiruchengode, who examined PW1 on

08.09.2013 at about 5:30 p.m. In her evidence, she confirms that PW10/Sub-

Inspector of Police gave a request with crime number to examine PW1 both

physically and clinically and to give opinion whether the victim was

subjected to rape. Till 08.09.2013 she was in the hospital. PW1's evidence is

that MO1 to MO3 seized from her residence. On the contrary,

Ex.P16/seizure mahazar records that MO1 to MO3 collected from

Government Hospital, Tiruchengode on 08.09.2013 at about 11:00 a.m.

further, no spermatozoa detected in MO1 to MO3 as per Ex.P7. Though the

case was initially projected as house trespass and commission of rape, the

Trial Court found that it was only a case of attempt to rape. It is clear in

Ex.P1/complaint that there is no attestation by any Doctor, more particularly,

PW7. Strangely, PW7 gives opinion/Ex.P10 in the reverse of forensic

report/Ex.P7 stating that on clinical examination, the possibility of rape is

there. What is the reasoningl to come to such conclusion, nothing is

available. The specific case of the appellant is that he had political rivalry

Page No.12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

with Chinasamy and PW1 was employed under him. Further, the appellant

met with an accident, he was unconscious and was under treatment for

almost three months, which confirms that he was not physically fit to have

free movement. The evidence of witness, Doctors and medical reports

confirm the abrasion over fourchette recorded in Ex.P9 can be a natural

phenomena. The recording of Ex.P1/complaint is highly doubtful and there

is several infirmities in the prosecution case. Hence, this Court finds

prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant this Court is inclined to set

aside the conviction and acquit the appellant from the above case.

9.Accordingly, the judgment in S.C.No.66 of 2015 dated 03.11.2020

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act

Cases, Namakkal is set aside and the appellant is discharged from the above

case.

10.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

11.This Court appreciates Ms.Vrindha, Legal Aid Counsel for the third

Page No.13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

respondent for her strenuous efforts in doing research and putting forth the

case of the third respondent effectively. The Legal Services Authority to pay

the remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel as per Rules.

07.01.2026

Index : Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

cse

Page No.14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Tiruchengode Sub Division,

Namakkal District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Molasi Police Station,

Namakkal District.

3.The Sessions Judge,

Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases,

Namakkal.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

Page No.15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Pre-delivery judgment made in

Crl.A.No.227 of 2021

07.01.2026

Page No.16 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis