Chennai: An alleged rape case in which the Madras High court had passed controversial orders directing the accused and the victim to appear for mediation took a surprising twist with the high court setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by a trial court. The judge sent back the case to the trial court to collect additional evidence with regard to the girl’s age.
Hearing an appeal filed by accused V Mohan of Vriddachalam, Justice A. Selvam said that “No document had been filed to prove her date of birth. The trial court simply believed the evidence of the victim girl with regard to her age”. Directing the trial court to dispose the case by December 2015, the judge said that “if the accused is in custody, he is at liberty forthwith”. Directing the trial court to take additional evidence, the judge ordered the fine amount and compensation paid by the accused to be refunded forthwith.
On July 22, 2014, Cuddalore Mahila Court had sentenced Mohan to a seven-year jail term for raping the 15-year-old girl in 2008. The victim, now 22-years-old, lives with her six-year-old daughter who was born after the alleged rape. In his criminal appeal petition, which was heard today, Mohan sought direction to suspend the sentence imposed by the Sessions court and to enlarge him on bail.
It may be recalled that on June 18, Justice P. Devadass had directed Mohan and the victim to appear before a Mediation Centre in the Madras high court campus. The order ignited widespread controversy and debate across the country. On July 11, the Madras high court had recalled the order in view of a Supreme Court observation that mediation and compromise should not be an option in rape cases.
Meanwhile, Mohan's counsel has repeatedly contended that both the accused and the girl loved each other during the relevant period and sexual intercourse was consensual.
Further, she became a major during the relevant period and the trial court, without considering the facts at hand, had erroneously found Mohan guilty under Section 376 IPC, the counsel argued asking for the conviction and sentence to be set aside.
The additional public prosecutor contended that the girl was born on June 27, 1993, and when she was raped she was only 15 years old. Under the circumstances even if she had given consent, the accused can be mulcted with liability under section 376. "Therefore, trial court had rightly found Mohan guilty and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not warrant any interference", the additional public prosecutor added.
The judge said, according to the prosecution, during the relevant period the victim girl was a minor. For the purpose of proving this, no document had been filed. However, during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the prosecution filed a memo along with a transfer certificate of the girl wherein it mentioned her birth date as June 27, 1993. Counsel for Mohan replied that for the purpose of proving the contents of transfer certificate relevant person has to be examined by giving sufficient opportunity to the accused.
The judge said “Under the circumstances, this court is of the view to direct the trial court to take additional evidence. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the trial court."
