Ravi vs State Rep. By Its, The Assistant Commissioner Of Police & Ors.

The petitioner/Accused in Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2024 was convicted by the Trial Court, by the judgment dated 23.03.2026, for the offence under Sections 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 3(1)(w) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said conviction, the petitioner has preferred the above appeal along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is doing business of purchasing waste banian cloths. The victim/de facto complainant's friend and neighbour, Rani is running a similar business nearby. There was some business rivalry between them. The victim was employed in a Babasuit shop. It is projected as though the petitioner, at the early hours at 4.00 a.m., attempted to catch hold of the victim's leg, pulled her nighty and attempted to commit rape. PW1/victim admits that during night hours, she only wears a chudidhar and not nighty. Hence, the foundational fact itself becomes doubtful. The petitioner is residing in the same locality near the house of the victim/PW1 and they are having a good cordial relationship. Due to some animosity, a false complaint has been projected. Further to gain credibility, it was projected as though the petitioner, one year prior to this incident, hugged the victim girl while she was washing clothes. It is admitted by PW1/victim and PW2/mother of the victim that there was no complaint with regard to the previous incident. PW2/mother and PW3/brother of the victim, though projected as eyewitnesses, they stated that they have not seen the occurrence proper and only after hearing the cry of PW1, they came there.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petitioner’s contention, filed counter affidavit and submitted that the de-facto complainant/victim, stated that the accused, namely Ravi, belongs to the Hindu Muthuriyar community, which is classified as a Backward Class, whereas she belongs to the Hindu Chakkiliyan community, which is classified as a Scheduled Caste, and both the accused and she were residing in the same street. She stated that on 05.04.2024, during the night hours, while she was sleeping along with her mother and younger brother in a thatched hut belonging to her, at about 04.00 a.m. on 06.04.2024, the accused Ravi entered into the said hut and caught hold of her leg while she was asleep. When she shook off his hand and continued to sleep, the accused lifted the nightdress worn by her, lay over her and attempted to commit rape upon her. On waking up, she noticed the accused lving over her and raised an alarm whereupon the accused gagged her mouth with his hand. She pushed away his hand and raised further cries, hearing which her mother and younger brother, who were sleeping nearby, woke up. On seeing them wake up, the accused got up from her, fled from the thatched hut and escaped from the scene. Thus, the accused had unlawfully entered her dwelling house during the early hours and attempted to commit rape upon her without her consent. Hence, the case.

She further submitted that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. No material object was identified or marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined, no document marked and no material object produced. She further submitted that the petitioner and the victim are residing in the same street, hence their identity is not disputed. PW4 and PW5 are nearby residents, who confirm that they heard the noise of the victim and the police reached the scene of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m. and conducted investigation. In this case, the evidence of PW1 confirms the overt act of outraging the woman’s modesty. Hence the trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner has a habit of committing similar offences and one more case in Crime No.408 of 2023 registered, which is pending trial in S.C.No.153 of 2026. Hence, she strongly opposed for grant of bail.

The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the case in S.C.No.153 of 2026 is pending trial, in which, PW6, the husband of Rani had lodged the complaint. In this case, it has been suggested to PW1 and other witnesses that Rani is also doing similar business and there is a motive.

The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent/de facto complainant submitted that in this case the victim/PW1, mother/PW2 and brother/PW3 all are residing in the same house. On 06.04.2024, when the victim was sleeping, the petitioner entered the house, pulled the victim’s nighty and attempted to lay over her. The victim shouted and raised alarm. PW2 and PW3 saw the petitioner running away. Earlier to this incident, the petitioner attempted to hug the victim, when she was washing the clothes. At the instance of the village panchayat, the complaint was not lodged, which got emboldened the petitioner for this act.

Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that initially, a case was registered as though the petitioner attempted to rape the victim, while she was wearing a nighty. The victim admits that she only wears Chudidhar. The petitioner and the victim are residing in the same street for a long time. Both knew their social status. The petitioner is said to have run away in the dark. Though it has been stated that the petitioner was caught red-handed, there is nothing to show that there was any light available. There is some discrepancy in the manner in which the petitioner was detained. In view of the above, this Court finds that the conviction of the petitioner requires reconsideration.

Accordingly, the substantive sentence of Imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the appeal and he is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Further, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court once in three months on the first working day at 10.30 a.m., until the disposal of the appeal and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on that day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence as directed by the Trial Court.

On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Trial Judge is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by herself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 5560].

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

This Court appreciates the service rendered by Ms.Jayshree Dharbar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to Ms.Jayshree Dharbar, Legal Aid Counsel.