{"id":223850,"date":"2004-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-20T20:26:00","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T14:56:00","slug":"mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1674 of 2002\n\nMohan                                          ..  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by,\nInspector of Police,\nThalai Gnayiru Police Station\n(Crime No.190 of 2001)                          .. Respondent\n\n        PRAYER: Appeal  against  the judgment dated 5.3.2002 made in S.C.No.28\nof 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.\n\n!For Appellant          :       Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy\n\n^For Respondent :       Mr.A.N.Thambithurai\n                        Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
        The  appeal  is  directed  against the judgment dated 5.3.2002 made in
\nSessions Case No.28 of 2002 on the file  of  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,
\nNagapattinam,  whereunder the appellant herein, sole accused was tried for the
\noffence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C.,  as  well  as  for  the  offences
\npunishable  under  Sections 376(f), 302 and 201 I.P.C., in connection with the
\noccurrence said to have taken place at  about  8.00  p.m.,  on  24.03.2001  in
\nSadaiyankadu  village,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Thalai  Gnayiru  Police
\nStation, Nagapattinam District, for having said to have  abducted,  raped  and
\nconsequently  murdered one Amulu alias Kalaijyothi, aged about 10 years at the
\ntime of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
        2.1.  The case of the prosecution was built up on the statement lodged
\nby P.W.1 to P.W.2, Village Administrative Officer at  about  10.30  a.m.    on
\n25.03.2001, which  was subsequently marked as Ex.P1.  P.W.1 is nonetheless the
\nfather of the deceased.  Based on the complaint (Ex.P1 ), a First  Information
\nReport  (Ex.P18)  was  registered  by  the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.17) at
\nabout 11.30 a.m.  on 25.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        2.2.  The story of the prosecution is that P.W.1, the  father  of  the
\ndeceased  was  residing  at  Vettaikaraniruppu village and he had two children
\nviz., the deceased Amulu alias Kalaijyothi and Venkatesan.   P.W.1’s  daughter
\nAmulu  alias  Kalaijyothi  was  staying  with  her grandfather, P.W.15 and was
\nstudying at a school near Pallivasal at Tiruvarur.  The accused, a resident of
\nVanavanmahadevi village,  was  working  under  P.W.15,  who  was  residing  at
\nSadaiyankadu village.    The  house  of  P.W.1, the father of the deceased was
\nsituated at + k.m.distance from the house of P.W.15 and the  accused  used  to
\ntake  the  deceased  from  the  house of P.W.15 to the house of P.W.1 and vice
\nversa.  On 24.03.2001, at about 7.00  p.m.,  the  accused,  who  was  carrying
\nkerosene  and  sugar,  took  the  deceased and her brother Venkatesan from the
\nhouse of P.W.1 5 to the house of P.W.1.  Thereafter, he left  the  brother  of
\nthe  deceased  at  the  house  of  P.W.1 and took the deceased on the guise of
\ntaking her to the house of P.W.1 for studying.  However, he took the  deceased
\nnear  Harichandra river, where, under a tree, he raped the deceased by closing
\nher mouth and nose with hands in order to restrain  her  from  raising  alarm,
\nfollowing which the deceased died due to shock.  Thereafter, the accused, with
\na  view  to cause disappearance of evidence of offence, threw the dead body of
\nthe deceased Amulu alias Kalaijyothi in the Harichandra river.  Thereafter,
\nthe deceased was not seen by anyone.\n<\/p>\n
        2.3.  On 25.03.2001, at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.6 Sadasivam came  to  the
\nhouse  of  P.W.1 and asked him as to the whereabouts of his daughter, to which
\nP.W.1 replied that he had sent his daughter to the house of P.W.15 along  with
\nthe accused.  P.W.6 informed P.W.1 that the dead body of his daughter is found
\nin Harichandra  river.    Immediately,  P.W.1, his wife Venkateswari and P.W.6
\nrushed to the scene of occurrence, where they found the body of  the  deceased
\nfloating on  the  river.   They brought the body to the banks of the river and
\nwhen examined, they found that the deceased’s eyes were protruding  and  there
\nwas bleeding in the nose, mouth and also in the private parts.\n<\/p>\n
        2.4.   Thereafter,  P.W.1  went  to  the  house  of P.W.2, the Village
\nAdministrative Officer of Vettaikaraniruppu  village  and  gave  a  statement,
\npursuant  to  which  P.W.2,  along  with  P.W.3, village menial went to Thalai
\nGnayiru Police Station and handed  over  the  statement  given  by  P.    W.1.
\nP.W.17, Sub Inspector of Police, received the said statement and registered it
\nin  Crime  No.190  of  2001  for the offence under Sections 376 and 302 I.P.C.
\nEx.P.18 is the printed F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
        2.5.  Pursuant to the F.I.R.  (Ex.P18), the investigating officer  (P.
\nW.20)  undertook  the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared
\nan Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4) and also a Rough Sketch  (Ex.P21  ),  recovered
\nmaterial  objects  from  the  scene of occurrence viz., M.O.1 – skirt, M.O.2 –
\nTops, M.O.3 – bangle pieces (four), M.O.4 – Ear studs, M.O.5  –  white  colour
\nbeads,  M.O.6  –  blood  stained  mud,  M.O.7  –  sample  earth,  M.O.8-lungi,
\nM.O.9-Shirt and M.O.10-Jatty, under mahazar Exs.P5 and P7 in the  presence  of
\nP.Ws.7 and 8.  He also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, which is
\nmarked as  Ex.P.22.   After seizing the clothes worn by the deceased, the body
\nof the deceased was sent for  post  mortem  with  the  requisition  marked  as
\nEx.P.8,  through  P.W.16  –  Police Constable, who handed over the body of the
\ndeceased to P.W.4, Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
        2.6.  P.W.4, who conducted post mortem at 4.45 p.m.  on 25.3.2001  and
\nissued  Post  Mortem  Certificate  (Ex.P.10),  found  the  following  external
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
“There was a tear of 1.5 cm in the 6’O clock position of the hymen.  Abrasion,
\nswelling and blood stained discharge was  seen  at  the  edges  of  the  tear.
\nVagina freely admitted two fingers.  There was no injury in the vagina.  There
\nwas no  injuries in the thighs or chest.  Vaginal smear and cervical smear was
\ntaken.  On microscopic examination, no spermatozoa seen.”\n<\/p>\n
P.W.4 reserved the cause of death pending the report of chemical  analysis  of
\nviscera.  On 17.4.2001, Ex.P.9, chemical analysis report of the examination of
\nviscera  was  issued  by  the  Regional  Forensic  Science Laboratory, Medical
\nCollege Buildings, Thanjavur, whereunder it was opined that the deceased would
\nappear to have died of shock due to subarachnoid haemorrhage 18-21 hours prior
\nto post mortem.\n<\/p>\n
        2.7.  On the very same day of occurrence viz.,  on  24.3.2001,  P.W.20
\nInspector  of  Police arrested the accused near the banks of Koozhai river and
\nhe gave a confession statement in the presence of  P.W.8  and  another.    The
\nadmissible  portion of the confession statement given by the accused is marked
\nas Ex.P.6.  Thereafter, the accused took the police party to the house of  the
\npresident of the village and from the roof of the house, produced the material
\nobjects  M.Os.8  to 10, which were seized in the presence of P.W.8 and another
\nunder mahazar Ex.P7.    The  material  objects  were  forwarded  for  chemical
\nanalysis   through  the  Court  and  accordingly,  chemical  analyst’s  report
\n(Ex.P.13) and Serologist’s report (Ex.P.14) were obtained.\n<\/p>\n
        2.8.  On 27.3.2001, P.W.20, sent a requisition to the  Court  for  the
\nmedical  examination  of  the  accused  and  also  a  requisition for chemical
\nanalysis of the material objects.  He  examined  the  witnesses  and  recorded<\/p>\n
their statements on various dates.  Thereafter, as P.W.20 was transferred, his
\nsucceeding  officer  completed the investigation and filed the final report on
\n15.8.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        3.1.  The accused, however, denied the charges and hence he was  tried
\nin S.C.No.28 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
        3.2.  On behalf of the prosecution, 20 witnesses were examined.  P.W.1
\nis the father of the deceased, who spoke about the accused taking the deceased
\nwith  him to the house of P.W.15, P.W.2 is the Village Administrative Officer,
\nP.W.4, the doctor who conducted post mortem, P.W.16 is the Head Constable, who
\nhanded over the body of the deceased to P.W.4 for post mortem, P.W.17  is  the
\nSub  Inspector  of Police, who registered FIR, and P.W.20 is the Investigating
\nOfficer, through whom documents referred to above were  marked  as  Exs.P1  to
\nP.22 and Material Objects referred to above were produced and marked as M.Os.1
\nto 10.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   When  the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after
\nthe trial, he pleaded not guilty.  However, the  learned  Additional  Sessions
\nJudge,  Nagapattinam, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the
\nappellant for the offence punishable under Section 36  6,  376,  302  and  201
\nI.P.C.  and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine
\nof  Rs.100\/-,  in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
\nSection 366 I.P.C., 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200\/-, in
\ndefault 6 months rigorous imprisonment  for  the  offence  under  Section  376
\nI.P.C.,  imprisonment  for  life with a fine of Rs.500\/- in default six months
\nrigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and two  years
\nrigorous imprisonment  with  a fine of Rs.100\/-.  In default 3 months rigorous
\nimprisonment, for the offence under Section  201  I.P.C.    Hence,  the  above
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the
\nconviction  of  the  appellant  as  well as the sentence imposed on him on the
\nfollowing grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)The case of the  prosecution  attributing  and  fixing  the  offence  under
\nSection  366  I.P.C., as to the kidnapping of the deceased by the appellant is
\nhighly contradictory, as P.W.1, the  father  of  the  deceased  says  that  he
\nhimself  has  sent his daughter along with the accused to the house of P.W.15;
\nand<\/p>\n
(ii)P.W.4, the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body issued Ex.P10,
\npostmortem certificate, without giving any opinion about the  cause  of  death
\nand  whether the deceased was raped and only at the time adducing of evidence,
\nthe doctor says that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Mr.A.N.Thambithurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal  Side),
\non  the  other  hand,  justifies  the conviction of the appellant and also the
\npunishment imposed on him, as the same is based on the evidence of P.W.1  that
\nthe  accused  alone  has  taken  the  deceased  along with him to the house of
\nP.W.15, which is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6, who saw  the  deceased
\naccompanying  the  accused  and  also  the  evidence  of P.W.4, the doctor who
\nconducted  postmortem  ,  opining  that  the  death  was  due  to  shock   and
\nhaemorrhage.   The  learned  Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also contends that
\nthe evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5,  who
\nwas  present with P.W.1 in his house, when the accused took the deceased along
\nwith him.               7.  We have  given  a  careful  consideration  to  the
\nsubmissions of both sides.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Concededly, the presence of the deceased along with the accused on
\nthe  fateful day has been witnessed by P.Ws.1, 5 and 6, who have categorically
\nspoken about the deceased being taken by the accused.  The master and  servant
\nrelationship  between P.W.15 and the accused is also not disputed and there is
\nevery chance of the accused having proximity with the deceased, who,  thinking
\nthat  the  accused  will  safely  leave  her  in  her  grand  father’s  house,
\naccompanied him.  However, the fact that the accused  asked  the  deceased  to
\naccompany  him  to  the  house  of  P.W.15  is  not  well  established  by the
\nprosecution, as P.W.1, in his evidence, has  spoken  to  the  effect  that  he
\nhimself has  sent  his  daughter\/deceased  along with the accused.  Hence, the
\noffence under Section 366 is not made out.  Accordingly, the accused is liable
\nto be acquitted from the said offence.  However, the accused taking  advantage
\nof the situation and the innocence and tender age of the deceased, indulged in
\nbrutal rape and gruesome murder.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The case of the prosecution is not based on the direct evidence or
\neye witness, but based on circumstantial evidence.  Since every circumstantial
\nevidence  is  relied  upon  by the prosecution and have a probative link for a
\nsafe conviction, the same must not only satisfy the test of reasonability, but
\nalso confirmed on certainty.  The  circumstance  relied  upon  in  support  of
\nconviction  must,  therefore,  be fully established and the weight of evidence
\nfurnished by those circumstances must be so complete.  Therefore, the link  in
\nthe  chain  should be fully established to a conclusive nature but not on mere
\nsuspicion to hold the accused guilty.  In other words, all  the  circumstances
\ncumulatively  taken  together  should lead only to the irresistible conclusion
\nthat the accused alone is the author of the crime.  Therefore, when  the  case
\nof  the  prosecution  is  based  on  circumstantial  evidence,  each and every
\nincriminating  substance  must  be  clearly  established  by  a  reliable  and
\nclinching  evidence  and  the  circumstances  must  be  proved from a chain of
\nevidence, from which only irresistible conclusion for the guilt of the accused
\ncan be safely  drawn.    Hence,  we  are  inclined  to  analyse  the  evidence
\nmicroscopically to satisfy ourselves as to the chain of the circumstances that
\nled to the only inference of the guilt of the accused without any break in the
\nlink.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  evidence  of  P.Ws.1  and 15, father and grandfather of the
\ndeceased, aged 10 years, speaks about the case of  the  prosecution  that  the
\naccused  was  working  in  the  house of P.W.15, where the deceased girl Amulu
\nalias Kalaijyothi was staying to pursue  her  education  in  the  school  near
\nPallivasal at  Thiruvarur.  The distance between the house of the deceased and
\nher grandfather P.W.15 is about + km.  Deposing  confidence  in  the  servant,
\nboth  P.W.1  and  P.W.15 used to ask the accused to take the deceased from the
\nhouse of P.W.15 and P.W.1 and vice versa.  P.W.5 is  the  neighbour  of  P.W.1
\nliving at  four  to  five  houses  away  from  the house of P.W.1.  As per the
\nevidence of P.Ws.  1, 5 and 15, the accused  brought  the  deceased  from  the
\nhouse  of  P.W.15  on  24.3.2001  evening, bringing some kerosene and sugar at
\nabout 7.30 p.m., when P.W.5 was present in  the  house  of  P.W.1,  and  after
\nhanding over the kerosene and sugar, the accused took the deceased back to the
\ngrandfather’s  house,  P.W.15,  where  she is ordinarily staying to pursue her
\neducation.  P.W.13 is a fisherman,  who  deposed  that  he  saw  the  deceased
\naccompanied  by  the  accused,  was  coming  from the house of P.W.1, and when
\nenquired, she replied to P.W.13 that she was going to her grandfather’s  house
\nP.W.15, to  study.    According  to P.W.14 a fisherman, when he was fishing on
\n24.3.2001, he heard noise 100 feet away of something  being  thrown  into  the
\nwater  at about 8.15 p.m., and thought that someone had thrown the fishing net
\ninto the water for fishing.  After 15 minutes, when he was returning home  for
\nhis  dinner,  he  saw  the  accused running towards western side wearing a wet
\nlungi.  When he enquired the accused, he replied  that  he  slipped  into  the
\nriver while  washing his legs.  The evidence of P.Ws.6,7 and 8 would show that
\nthey saw the body of the deceased floating on the river on the next day  i.e.,
\non 25.3.2001 at 6.00 a.m.  The further evidence of P.W.8 is that, based on the
\nstatement  of  the  accused  in  the  presence  of P.W.8, the police recovered
\nM.Os.8,9 and 10, viz., lungi, shirt and jatti, which was marked under  mahazar
\nEx.P.7,  which  corroborates  with  the  evidence  of  P.W.14, that he saw the
\naccused running towards western side wearing wet lungi.   Of  course,  in  the
\ncross  examination,  P.W.14 could not say the colour of the lungi, the accused
\nwas wearing.  P.W.14 explains that he could not see the colour  of  the  lungi
\ndue to  the  darkness and the explanation is convincing.  The further evidence
\nof P.Ws.1 3 and 14, identifying the body of the  deceased,  corroborates  with
\nthe  evidence  of  P.Ws.1,5,6,7,8 and 15 as to the truth that the deceased was
\nseen in the company of the accused, satisfying the last seen theory.\n<\/p>\n
        10.1.  Then, what remains is as to the act of rape  committed  by  the
\naccused on  the deceased girl of 10 years age.  The evidence of P.Ws.1,4,5 and
\n15 categorically proved that the deceased was a 10 years old girl.    What  is
\nmore  important  is the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P.10, which speaks
\nabout the  injury  and  the  evidence  of  P.W.4,  doctor  who  conducted  the
\npostmortem.   It  is  more apt to refer the relevant portion of the postmortem
\ncertificate marked as Ex.P.10.\n<\/p>\n
“Appearances found at the postmortem of a body of a female lying on its back:
\nAxillary and pubic hear not developed.  Mammary glands not developed.    There
\nwere  totally  twenty  four teeth, twelve in the upper jaw and twelve teeth in
\nlower jaw.  Second molar teeth not developed.\n<\/p>\n
External Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
There was a tear of 1.5 cm in the 6’O clock position of the hymen.   Abrasion,
\nswelling  and  blood  stained  discharge  was  seen  at the edges of the tear.
\nVagina freely admitted two fingers.  There was no injury in the vagina.”\n<\/p>\n
The above report will speak about the tender age  of  the  deceased,  who  was
\nsubjected to  heinous  crime of rape by the accused.  The evidence of P.W.4, a
\nlady doctor, who conducted the postmortem, through whom  Ex.P.10  was  marked,
\nclearly shows that there was a tear of 1.5 cm in the 6’O clock position of the
\nhymen; abrasion, swelling and blood stained discharge was seen at the edges of
\nthe tear  and the vagina freely admitted two fingers.  The above report of the
\ndoctor is strengthened by the chemical analysis report of the viscera  Ex.P.9,
\nin  which  it  was opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock
\ndue to subarachnoid haemorrhage 18-21 hours prior to post mortem.   The  above
\npiece  of  evidence clearly shows that the deceased was brutally raped and due
\nto shock, the deceased breathed her last.\n<\/p>\n
        10.2.  The evidence of P.W.9, who  examined  the  accused  as  to  the
\npotentiality of the accused, would clearly establish that the accused persists
\nenough to perform normal sexual intercourse and he is able to procreate.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   From  a closer analysis of these witnesses, a chain of following
\ncircumstances lead to the only inference of the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
i.The deceased, tender aged minor  girl,  viz.,  the  daughter  of  P.W.1  and
\ngranddaughter  of  P.W.15, was staying in the house of her grandfather P.W.15,
\nto pursue her education in a school near Pallivasal at Thiruvarur;
\nii.the accused was working as servant in the house of P.W.15;
\niii.deposing confidence in the accused, both P.W.15 and P.W.1,  used  to  send
\nthe  girl  to  the  house  of  P.W.1 and P.W.15 vice versa, accompanied by the
\naccused;\n<\/p>\n
iv.on the fateful day, viz., 24.3.2001 evening, the deceased was sent  in  the
\ncompany  of  the accused, from the house of P.W.15 and P.W.1 with kerosene and
\nsugar and he reached the house of P.W.1 at 7.30 to 8.00 a.m., when  P.W.5  was
\npresent  and  after some time, the accused took the deceased back to the house
\nof P.W.15.  Both the deceased and the accused  were  going  to  the  house  of
\nP.W.15;\n<\/p>\n
v.P.W.13 enquired the deceased as to where she was going, to which she replied
\nthat she is going to her grandfather’s house for studying;
\nvi.thereafter   the  body  was  found  floating  in  the  river,  as  seen  by
\nP.Ws.1,5,6,7,8 and 15;\n<\/p>\n
vii.the evidence of P.W.4, the lady doctor, who conducted postmortem,  through
\nwhom  Ex.P.10  was  marked,  proves that the deceased, a tender aged girl, was
\nsubjected to rape;\n<\/p>\n
viii.the evidence of the doctor P.W.9 is that the accused is potential  enough
\nto commit the crime of rape;\n<\/p>\n
ix.the  possibility  of  any person other than the accused being the author of
\nthe crime becomes impossible when the accused was returning wearing wet lungi,
\nas spoken by P.W.13; and
\nx.      the above chain of circumstances satisfy the last seen  theory,  since
\nthe  accused  was  seen last with the deceased and thereafter the deceased was
\nraped and found dead.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   From  the  above  facts,  it  is  clear  that  each  and   every
\nincriminating circumstance was clearly established by a reliable and clinching
\nevidence and the chain of events discussed above irresistibly proves the guilt
\nof  the  accused  for  safe  conviction  as  the  same  is not merely based on
\nsuspicion or conjecture and every link stands satisfactorily  proved  and  the
\nlink  between  each of circumstantial evidence is in proximity to the time and
\nsituation.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Of course, when the accused was questioned on the above aspect of
\nthe prosecution case, his defence was a total denial and  plea  of  ignorance.
\nThe  bald  statement  of  the  accused,  either  denying  the  evidence of the
\nprosecution, or pleading ignorance  of  the  same,  only  proves  his  adamant
\nattitude  of  total  denial and such false denial and plea of ignorance assume
\nimportance as it would supply a missing link in the chain, if any, even though
\nnothing as such was pointed out by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   In Kamta Tiwari -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh { 1996 (6) S.C.C.25
\n0}, where the deceased was aged  about  7  years  and  the  accused  not  only
\nbrutally  raped  and  but also killed her and thrown her body into a well, the
\nSupreme Court following the decisions in Bachan Singh v.  State of Punjab  AIR
\n1980 SC  898  and  Machhi Singh v.  State of Punjab, AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 957, has held
\nthus,
\n“When an innocent hapless girl of 7  years  was  subjected  to  such  barbaric
\ntreatment  by  a  person  who  was in a position of her trust, his culpability
\nassumes the proportion of extreme depravity and arouses a sense  of  revulsion
\nin the  mind  of  the common man.  In fine, the motivation of the perpetrator,
\nthe vulnerability of the victim, the enormity  of  the  crime,  the  execution
\nthereof  persuade  us  to hold that this is a “rarest of rare” cases where the
\nsentence of death is  eminently  desirable  not  only  to  deter  others  from
\ncommitting  such  atrocious  crimes,  but  also to give emphatic expression to
\nsociety’s abhorrence of such crimes.”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Hence, holding that the prosecution has proved  its  case  beyond
\nall  reasonable  doubt,  we  are inclined to dismiss the appeal confirming the
\norder of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.2002 made in S.C.No.2 8 of 2002  on
\nthe  file  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Nagapattinam,  however,  with the
\nmodification as indicated below.\n<\/p>\n
i.The conviction and sentence  imposed  on  the  appellant  for  the  offences
\npunishable under Sections 376(f), 302 and 201 I.P.C., is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
ii.The  conviction  and  sentence  imposed  on  the  appellant for the offence
\npunishable under Section 366 I.P.C., is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
iii.The sentences shall run concurrently, instead of consecutively  as  stated
\nin the order of conviction passed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Index   :       Yes\nInternet        :       Yes\n\nKST\/sl.\n\nTo\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.  The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam District.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Inspector of Police,Thalai Gnayiru Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2002 Mohan .. Appellant -Vs- State by, Inspector of Police, Thalai Gnayiru Police Station (Crime No.190 of 2001) .. Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004"},"wordCount":3757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004","name":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T14:56:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-vs-state-by-on-28-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan vs State By on 28 October, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}