Madurai: Setting aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on a farmer by a trial court on the charge of raping a minor girl, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court observed that the prosecution should be vigilant enough to conduct the investigation in a right manner and bring home the guilt of the accused in a flawless way.
This is imperative, as “any failure on the part of the prosecution would definitely go to the benefit of the accused,” said Justice B. Gokuldas. Allowing a criminal appeal filed by farmer Chellappan from Gandarvakottai village in Pudukottai district, a division bench comprising Justices K.K. Sasidharan and Gokuldas said that the medical officer who issued the certificate of the minor girl had very clearly mentioned that there was neither external injury on the private part nor any internal injury in the form of tearing of hymen.
The judges observed that Mahila Court in Pudukottai district imposed life sentence to the appellant under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on the charge of raping a 11-year-old girl in a cashew grove in Pudukottai on June 2, 2013, without cross-examining the evidences submitted by the police properly.
The court said though the incident had occurred at 8.30 am, the victim’s father had filed a complaint with the police at 11 pm. This apart, the victim’s mother washed her immediately after she reached home from cashew grove and thereby there was no occasion to subject the cloths of the victim to chemical examination.
Moreover it was the father of the victim who stated that the accused caused penetration in the private part of her daughter, but her wife claims hat she was raped under a mango tree. On the contrary, the victim said that the appellant undressed her and laid over her, but he allowed her to go after she raised an alarm, said the judges.
“A combined reading of the above said three witnesses would show that each of them has come up with a different version about the occurrence and the manner in which the victim was allegedly subjected to sexual violence. The versions not being clear and obsessed with contradictions, this Court feels that it is not safe to absolutely act upon the testimonies,” said Justice Gokuldas.
Pointing out in the Radhu V. State of M.P judgement, the bench said “...The Courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get ride of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the fact and circumstances of each case.”
