SRI GANESH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 06-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2017) I S.C.R. 278 
SRI GANESH 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 39 of20l7) 
JANUARY 06, 20 I 7 
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
·' 
Penal Code, 1860: s.376- Sexual intercourse on false promise 
of marriage - Allegation of victim that the appellant-accused 
committed sexual intercourse 5-6 times on false promise of marriage'.... 
In her cross examination, victim gave last date of sexual intercourse 
as August 2009 - Appellant took plea of being juvenile on that 
date - Trial court after considering relevant material on record 
' 
declared the appellant to be juvenile on the last date of incident -
Revision petition of complainant allowed by High Court and matter 
remitted to trial court 011 the ground that the trial court ought to 
have considered the expert opinion obtained from a medical officer 
to determine the age of accused - Held: The question of obtaining 
medical opinion arises only if the documents are not available -
Trial court took into account the documentary evidence as 
contemplated in the statutory provisions - Jn the face of the relevant 
documentary e11ide11ce, there could be no medical examination to 
ascertain the age '!(the appellant and as such the consequential 
directions passed by the High Court were, completely unwarranted -
Trial court was therefore justified in going by the assertions made 
by the l'ictim in her cross examination and then considering whether 
the appellant was juvenile on that date or not. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, the trial court took into 
account the documentary evidence as contemplated in the 
statutory provisions and returned a finding that the date of birth 
of the appellant was 19.10.1991. During tbe course of its 
judgment, the High Court could not find such conclusion to be 
vitiated on any ground. In the face of the relevant documentary 
evidence, there could be no medical examination to ascertain 
the age of the appellant and as such the consequential directions 
278 
SRI GANESH v. STATE OF 1AMIL NADU AND ANR. 
passed by tbe High Court w.ere completely unwarranted. Further, 
if the allegations of the prosecution are that' the offence under 
Section 376 IPC was committed on more than one occasion, in 
order to see whether the appellant was juvenile or not, it is enongh 
to see if he was juvenile on the date when the last of such incidents 
had occurred. The trial court was therefore justified in going by 
the assertions made by the victim in her cross examination and 
then considering whether the appellant was juvenile on that date 
or not. The approach of the High Court in the present case was· 
incorrect and completely misdirected. Even if the matter is 
remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration, it would 
be an empty formality in the face of finding of faet rendered by 
the trial court. The view taken by· the trial court is restored. (Paras 
11, 13 J [284-C-E, H; 285'A-Bj' 
Ash~>ani Kunwr Saxe'!ay. S/qte of Madhya Pradesh 
(2012) 9 SCC 750 : [20.12] 10 SCR 540 - relied on . 
. I'-• 
Karthi alias Karthick V. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 12 
SCC 710 : [20131 8 SCR 1012- distinguished. 
[20121 10 SCR 540 
[20131 8 SCR 1012 
Case Law Reference 
relied on 
distinguished 
Para9 
Para9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 39 of2017. 
· 
· 
· 
From the Order dated 13. I 0.2015 by the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras in Criminal Revision No. 383 of2015. 
A. Ramesh, Sr. Adv., R. Anand Padmanabhan, L. Arun, Ms. 
Ananya Mukherjee (For Shashi Bhushan Kumar), Advs. fortheAppell;mt. 
Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Velu Murugan, U. S. Dhindsa, Ms. 
Namita Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. I. Leave .granted .. 
279 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. This appeal by special leave challenges .the Judgment and 
Order dated .13.l 0.2015 passed by the High Co.urtofMadras in Criminal 
Revision Case No.383 of2015. In order to avoid any identification of 
H 
280 
A 
B 
c 
n 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
the victim, we have transposed the original respondent No. I namely, the 
Complainant as respondent No.2 and the State is now shown as 
respondent No. I in the matter. 
3. Pursuant to complaint by the complainant, FIR vi de Crime 
· No.5/2010 was initially registered under Sections 417 and 506(ii) IPC on 
26.03.20 I 0 with Old Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai against the 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.