Madras HC | Partially deaf and mute victim voiced to have been subjected to attempt to rape: Read HC’s ruling

Madras High Court: B. Pugalendhi, J., while partly allowing the appeal modified the offence to fall under Section 354 of the Penal Code 1860 from Section 377 IPC.

The instant appeal was filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

Trial Court found the appellant not guilty for the offence under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 but found him to be guilty for the offence under Section 377 IPC.

Appellant filed the instant appeal against the trial court’s decision.

Prosecutions’ Case

Victim who has been stated to be partially deaf and completely dumb was aged 37 years at the time of occurrence and also unmarried.

While the victim was taking bath in the pump set, the accused went behind and hugged her with an intention to commit rape.

Analysis

Though the accused attempted to rape the victim girl, she escaped from such an attempt.

Considering the evidence of the Doctor [PW8] that there was no external injury, other than the injury noted in the shoulder of the victim and also considering the evidence of the Doctor [PW8] and the certificate issued by the Doctor, this Court opined that the said act of the appellant would fall under Section 354 IPC and not under Section 377 IPC.

Bench noted that no material on record was placed to show that the accused had committed an unnatural offence.

PW4 an innocent victim thwarted on the accused, the moment he hugged her from back and therefore, she did not suffer any injury on her private parts.

“Section 375 IPC: Rape

A man is said to commit ‘rape’ who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:—

First — Against her will.

Secondly — Without her consent.

Thirdly — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly — With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.”

Section 377 IPC deals with the unnatural offence.

In accordance with the medical evidence, the victim girl suffered an abrasion on her shoulder in the scuffle to protect her from the accused, but no injury on her private parts was caused.

In view of the above, the question for consideration was whether the said act of the accused would amount to the commission of offence under Section 377 or 375 IPC or will it fall under Section 354 IPC?

Court held that the overt act attributed as against the accused does not fall under the ingredients for the offence under Sections 375 or 377 IPC. Whereas, the appellant attempted to outrage the modesty of the victim, who is partially deaf and dumb.

Section 354 IPC: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty

“Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

In view of the above position, Supreme Court’s decision in Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 was referred.

Supreme Court’s decision in Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) SCC 8 560 was referred in regard to the issue that in the absence of charge under any other section, whether the accused should be acquitted or convicted for outraging the modesty of a woman. In this decision of the Supreme Court, Section 222 of the CrPC was invoked, which provides that in a case where the accused is charged with a major offence and the said charge is not proved, the accused may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

In the present case, Court states that though the appellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 376 IPC, he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 377 IPC.

In view of the occurrence of the incident, the Court held that the said act of the appellant as discussed above would fall under Section 354 IPC.

Hence the appeal was partly allowed. [Vairamuthu v. State, Crl. A (MD) No. 357 of 2015, decided on 01-10-2020]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.