Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53463 (MAD)

Surya v. State of Tamil Nadu

2026-06-10

K K Ramakrishnan, N Anand Venkatesh

body2026
JUDGMENT : K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The appellants/accused nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present appeals challenging the judgment made in S.C. No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024 by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, whereby they were convicted and sentenced in the following manner: 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The deceased, Rubini, was the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and was pursuing the third year B.Sc. Mathematics course at Nobel Arts and Science College, Aruppukottai. Owing to an injury sustained by her and the consequent surgery, she was allowed to reside on the ground floor of the house belonging to P.W.1 and P.W.2. While so, the deceased developed love affair with one Chella. They were in frequent contact through mobile phone and social media platforms, including Instagram. During the course of their relationship, the accused no.1 allegedly intercepted certain intimate messages and materials relating to the deceased. According to the prosecution, on 01.01.2021 at about 1.30 a.m., under the guise of conveying New Year wishes, the first accused entered the house of the deceased, accessed her mobile phone, and clandestinely viewed her private messages. Thereafter, he is alleged to have criminally intimidated the deceased by threatening to reveal the contents of those messages and, exploiting the situation, subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will. It is further alleged that he took possession of her mobile phone and continued to threaten her that he would publish the materials if she disclosed the incident to anyone. 2.2. The prosecution further alleges that the second accused also joined in threatening the deceased in the same way. Unable to bear the intimidation, humiliation, and mental distress caused by the conduct of the accused, the deceased allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself in the room shared by her on the ground floor of the house. 2.3. On noticing that the room remained locked, P.W.1 and P.W.2 broke open the door and found their daughter hanging. They lowered the body and thereafter lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police along with a suicide note purportedly left by the deceased. 2.4. On the basis of the complaint, a case was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The investigation was thereafter taken up by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, the suicide note and other materials were collected and examined. 2.4. On the basis of the complaint, a case was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The investigation was thereafter taken up by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, the suicide note and other materials were collected and examined. Upon inquiry, the Investigating Officer found that the first accused had committed rape and criminal intimidation and that both the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Consequently, the case was altered to the appropriate penal provisions and further investigation was carried out. 2.5. During the investigation, the accused were arrested, witnesses were examined, and their statements were recorded. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest proceedings over the body of the deceased and collected all relevant materials, including the post-mortem certificate, forensic science laboratory reports, chemical analysis reports, electronic evidence, and handwriting expert's opinion regarding the suicide note. Upon completion of the investigation and after collecting all scientific and documentary evidence, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court. The case was taken on file as S.C. No. 24 of 2022 by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. Summons were issued to the accused and, on their appearance, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial Court framed appropriate charges against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to them. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. 2.6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to P23, and produced M.Os.1 to 8. On the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. 2.7. Upon completion of the evidence on the side of prosecution, the learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence on record. The accused denied the same as false and did not choose to examine any witness on their side. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by the impugned judgment made in S.C. No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024, found the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated above. 3. The accused denied the same as false and did not choose to examine any witness on their side. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court, by the impugned judgment made in S.C. No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024, found the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated above. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence made in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur in S.C.No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024 , A1 preferred CRL.A(MD).No.331 of 2024 and A2 preferred CRL.A(MD).No.337 of 2024. 4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants: 4.1. The learned counsel appearing for A2 contended that there was absolutely no material available on record to sustain the conviction against him under Section 306 IPC . According to the learned counsel, except a stray reference in the suicide note alleging intimidation by A2, no independent evidence was available to connect him with the alleged offence. There was no corroborative material such as call detail records, electronic evidence, CCTV footage, or witness testimony establishing any act of intimidation on the part of A2. It was further submitted that the trial Court, solely on the basis of the recital found in the suicide note, erroneously convicted A2. 4.2. The learned counsel further submitted that there had been allegations that A2 had earlier expressed his love towards the deceased, which was allegedly opposed by her parents, and on account of such previous misunderstanding, he had been falsely implicated in the case. 4.3. The learned counsel appearing for A1 contended that, insofar as the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, there was no evidence available on record except the allegation contained in the suicide note. According to him, the medical and scientific evidence did not support the prosecution case. No traces of semen or spermatozoa were found either on the body of the deceased, her clothes, or the clothes of A1. The chemical analysis and forensic reports did not reveal any biological material supporting the allegation of rape. 4.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence on record indicated that the deceased was having her menstrual cycle at the relevant point of time and there was absolutely no evidence to establish that A1 had subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse during such period. 4.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence on record indicated that the deceased was having her menstrual cycle at the relevant point of time and there was absolutely no evidence to establish that A1 had subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse during such period. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it was argued that conviction under Section 376 IPC merely on the basis of alleged statement made in the suicide note is legally unsustainable. 4.5. The learned counsel further argued that even the charge under Section 306 IPC was not made out. According to him, except the call detail records showing contact between the deceased and A1, there was no independent evidence corroborating the allegations contained in the suicide note. The prosecution witnesses, particularly the neighbours examined to establish the presence of A1 near the house of the deceased during the early hours of the occurrence day, had not supported the prosecution case and were treated as hostile. 4.6. The learned counsel also questioned the recovery of the mobile phone allegedly belonging to the deceased from the custody of A1. According to him, the recovery itself was doubtful and there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that the recovered mobile phone belonged to or was exclusively used by the deceased. In such circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the conviction of A1 under Sections 376 and 306 IPC and the conviction of A2 under Section 306 IPC are liable to be set aside and both the accused are entitled to acquittal. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side): 5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the suicide note left by the deceased had been duly proved in accordance with law. The handwriting expert's opinion clearly established that the handwriting and signature found in the suicide is of the deceased. The contents of the suicide note unmistakably disclosed the acts of intimidation and harassment committed by both the accused and the sexual assault committed by A1. 5.2. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu further submitted that the suicide note clearly revealed that the conduct of both the accused had driven the deceased to a state of despair, ultimately she deciding to commit suicide. 5.2. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu further submitted that the suicide note clearly revealed that the conduct of both the accused had driven the deceased to a state of despair, ultimately she deciding to commit suicide. Once the authenticity of the suicide note stood established, the recitals contained therein constituted substantive and reliable evidence against the accused. It was further contended that the electronic evidence collected during the course of investigation, coupled with the recovery of the mobile phone and the conduct of A1 reflected through the call detail records, substantially corroborated the allegations found in the suicide note. Therefore, the learned trial Judge had rightly convicted A1 under Sections 376 and 306 IPC and A2 under Section 306 IPC . 5.3. By way of reply, the learned counsel appearing for A1 contended that the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily explain the source documents and admitted writings of the deceased that were forwarded to the handwriting expert for comparison. According to him, the very foundation of the expert opinion was doubtful and therefore the authorship of the suicide note had not been properly established. 5.4. In response, the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the admitted writings of the deceased had been duly collected during the investigation and were forwarded to the handwriting expert through proper Court proceedings. It was further pointed out that no serious challenge had been made during cross-examination regarding the procedure adopted for obtaining and forwarding the admitted writings. Therefore, the objection raised regarding the proof of the suicide note deserves to be rejected. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side, perused the entire evidence available on record, and also considered the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Discussion: 7.1. According to the prosecution, the deceased was the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and was pursuing the third year of a B.Sc. course at Nobel College, Aruppukkottai. Prior to the occurrence, she had sustained a leg injury and undergone surgery. Owing to her medical condition, she was permitted to stay on the ground floor of the family house for her convenience, while P.Ws.1 and 2 were residing on the first floor. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased was in love with P.W.12. Prior to the occurrence, she had sustained a leg injury and undergone surgery. Owing to her medical condition, she was permitted to stay on the ground floor of the family house for her convenience, while P.Ws.1 and 2 were residing on the first floor. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased was in love with P.W.12. P.W.12 maintained an Instagram account and had uploaded photographs and posts of himself and the deceased. Some of those posts were allegedly fancied A1. When questioned by P.W.12 regarding A1's interest in the social media posts, the deceased is stated to have informed him that A1 was her cousin. 7.2. According to the prosecution, A1 subsequently came to know about the relationship between the deceased and P.W.12 and suspected that they were maintaining a physical relationship under the guise of a love affair. It is alleged that A1 took advantage of this circumstance and subjected the deceased to criminal intimidation. 7.3. The prosecution would further contend that during the early hours on 01.01.2021, A1 entered the house of the deceased, threatened her of publication of private messages and materials available in her social media accounts, and thereby compelled her to submit to sexual intercourse against her will. It is also alleged that A1 took possession of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased. 7.4. According to the prosecution, the continuous intimidation, threats and mental harassment caused by A1, coupled with the apprehension that her private communications and personal information would be made public, caused severe mental agony to the deceased. Unable to bear the humiliation and pressure, she ultimately committed suicide. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1 and the subsequent investigation, the prosecution was proceeded against the accused for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 7.5. The entire case was based on the suicide note recovered from the scene of occurrence, which was marked as Ex.P1. In order to establish the authorship of the suicide note, the Investigating Officer collected the notebooks and other admitted writings of the deceased and forwarded the same, along with the disputed document, for expert examination. The handwriting expert, who was examined before the Court, categorically deposed that the handwriting and signature found in Ex.P1 tallied with the admitted handwriting and signature of the deceased. The expert opinion has remained unshaken during cross-examination. The handwriting expert, who was examined before the Court, categorically deposed that the handwriting and signature found in Ex.P1 tallied with the admitted handwriting and signature of the deceased. The expert opinion has remained unshaken during cross-examination. No contra evidence was produced by the accused to discredit the said opinion or to demonstrate that the findings of the expert are erroneous. 7.6. This Court also does not find any circumstance on record to infer that Ex.P1 suicide note was forged, fabricated, or subsequently created for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused. Significantly, it is not even the specific defence of the accused that the deceased had not left behind any suicide note. Further, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused did not offer any plausible explanation regarding the existence of the suicide note or the circumstances under which it came into existence. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that Ex.P1 was authored by the deceased and that the prosecution has successfully established the genuineness and authenticity of the suicide note. Consequently, it becomes necessary to examine the contents of Ex.P1, which reads as follows: 7.7. The records reveal that the parents were under the pale of unbearable grief and profound mental anguish following the suicide of their daughter by hanging on the 1st day. It is further evident that the deceased, in her suicide note, had referred to her forced relationship with a particular individual and the acts of intimidation allegedly perpetrated by him, which, according to her, had driven her to take the extreme step of ending her life. Owing to the sensitive and personal nature of the contents of the suicide note, the parents were unable to openly disclose those matters to others and were thus caught between the agony of losing their daughter and the distress arising from the circumstances disclosed in the note. The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that they were passing through a period of deep sorrow and emotional trauma. 7.8. The prosecution has also successfully proved the recovery of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased from the custody of A1. The said recovery constitutes an important incriminating circumstance and provides substantial corroboration to the allegations made in the suicide note. Further, the authenticity of the suicide note has been satisfactorily established. 7.8. The prosecution has also successfully proved the recovery of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased from the custody of A1. The said recovery constitutes an important incriminating circumstance and provides substantial corroboration to the allegations made in the suicide note. Further, the authenticity of the suicide note has been satisfactorily established. The document was forwarded for examination by expert along with the admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased. The handwriting expert has opined that the suicide note was written by the deceased. The expert opinion remains unshaken and there is no material available on record to doubt its genuineness. 7.9. Thus, the contents of the suicide note stand corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, namely the call detail records, the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from A1, and the expert opinion regarding the authorship of the suicide note. Taken cumulatively, these circumstances form a complete chain and clearly establish that A1 had subjected the deceased to continuous intimidation and caused mental harassment, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide. 7.10. Upon a careful reading of the suicide note, this Court finds that the deceased had made specific allegations against A1 and attributed continuous intimidation and harassment on his part, which, according to her, ultimately drove her to commit suicide. However, insofar as the charge under Section 376 IPC is concerned, this Court is unable to sustain the conviction. 7.11. Except for the allegations contained in the suicide note, there is no independent corroborative material available on record to establish the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is that A1 had sexual intercourse with the deceased. However, the medical evidence does not lend sufficient support to such allegation. No seminal traces or other medical indicators suggestive of recent sexual intercourse were detected during the post-mortem examination. 7.12. Though the prosecution attempted to explain the absence of such evidence by contending that the body had been bathed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and other relatives before the post-mortem examination, the post-mortem report itself suggests the presence of menstrual discharge in the private parts of the deceased. In such circumstances, the explanation offered by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the charge under Section 376 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and A1 is entitled to acquittal insofar as the said offence is concerned. 7.13. In such circumstances, the explanation offered by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the charge under Section 376 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and A1 is entitled to acquittal insofar as the said offence is concerned. 7.13. Similarly, with regard to A2, namely Muthuraja, this Court finds that there is no material available on record, apart from a stray reference in the suicide note, to establish his involvement in the alleged acts of abetment. The prosecution has not produced any independent evidence connecting A2 with the circumstances that allegedly drove the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any corroborative material, this Court is not inclined to sustain the conviction of A2 for the offence under Section 306 IPC . However, insofar as A1 is concerned, this Court finds ample material on record to corroborate the material allegations contained in the suicide note and to sustain his conviction under Section 306 IPC . 7.14. The suicide note specifically discloses that A1 had taken possession of the deceased's mobile phone and threatened to publish objectionable materials allegedly contained therein. The contents of the suicide note clearly indicate that the deceased was under constant fear and mental pressure on account of such threats. 7.15. The prosecution has further established that there were frequent telephonic contacts between A1 and the deceased during the period immediately preceding the occurrence. The call detail records collected during the investigation reveal that there were more than sixteen calls exchanged between them during the early hours on 01.01.2021. These circumstances lend substantial assurance to the prosecution case that A1 had contacted the deceased repeatedly and subjected her to intimidation shortly before the occurrence. 8. Conclusion: 8.1. The conviction of A1 under Section 376 IPC in S.C.No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur is set aside. However, his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 306 IPC is confirmed. Therefore, Crl.A.(MD) No.331 of 2024 preferred by A1 is partly allowed. 8.2. Insofar as A2 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him in S.C.No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Crl.A.(MD) No.337 of 2024 preferred by A2 is allowed. 8.2. Insofar as A2 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him in S.C.No.24 of 2022 dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Crl.A.(MD) No.337 of 2024 preferred by A2 is allowed. The fine amount, if any, paid by A2 shall be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled. The appellant/A2 shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case.