LexMURUGAN @ SETTU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 5 S.C.R. 1189 MURUGAN @ SETTU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2004) MAY 06, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860- ss. 366, 376 ands. 363 rlw s. 109- Punishment for kidnapping and rape - A 1 allegedly kidnapped PW 4, compelled her to marry him and raped her C - A2 and A3 were allegedly involved in compelling PW 4 to get married to A 1 - Concurrent findings by the courts below that PW 4 was minor on the date of the incident - Trial court . ' convicted A 1 u/ss. 366 and 376 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years; and A2 and A3 u/s. D 3661109 and sentenced them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment each - High Court upheld conviction and sentence of A 1, however, modified that of A2 and A3 to s. 3631 109 and sentenced them to two years imprisonment each - Plea of appellants (A 1, A2 and A3) before Supreme Court that E PW 4 was major at the relevant time and that she married A 1 voluntarily and not under compulsion - On appeal, held: School certificate issued by the Headmaster on basis of the entry made in the school register corroborates the contents of the birth certificate issued by Municipality that prosecutrix F was minor on the date of the incident - Thus, no other issue required to be considered - Order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court does not call for interference - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 35 According to the prosecution, appellant (A1) G kidnapped PW-4, compelled her to marry him and raped her. A2 and A3 were allegedly involved in compelling PW- 4 to get married with the appellant. The trial court holding 1189 H 1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A that PW-4 was minor on the date of the incident, convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years; and A2 and A3 under Sections 366/109 IPC and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment each. B The High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence of A 1. The conviction of A2 and A3 under Sections 366/109 IPC was modified to one under Sections 363/109 IPC and imposed punishment of two years each. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. c Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Documents made ante /item motam can be relied upon safely, when such documents are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 11] D [1199-D-E] Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1982 SC 1057; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684 - relied on. E Mohd. lkram Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1625; Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. v. Rajni Kant and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 2933; Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 282; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SC 1796; Updesh Kumar and F Ors. v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 703; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh AIR 2005 SC 1868; Vishnu @ Undrya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2006 SC 508; Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714 - referred to. G 2.1. PW-1, father of the prosecutrix (PW-4) in his examination-in-chief did not say anything about the age of the prosecutrix. Thus, the defence did not cross- examine him on this i~sue. However, no suggestion were put to him by the defence that the prosecutrix was major H and had developed a liking/love affair with A.1 and had MURUGAN@ SETTU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1191 voluntarily gone with him. PW-15, mother of the A prosecutrix had deposed .that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 30.3.1984. At the relevant time, the prosecutirix was studying in 8th standard and was 14 years of age. Suggestion put to her that she was deposing about the age of her younger daughter and not B of the prosecutrix was denied. She also denied that she was deposing falsely. PW-11, Head Mistress of the School proved the certificate and stated that in the school register the date of birth of the prosecutrix had been recorded as 30.3.1984. [Paras 5 and 7] [1196-0-E; 1197- c F-H; 1198-A-B] 2.2. It is evident from a letter written by the prosecutrix to the police officer that she had developed a love affair with A 1, but there is nothing on record on 0 the basis of which she had written that her hospital age was 17 years. No reliance can be placed on such a letter in view of the certificates issued by the Municipality and the School.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.