the story So Far: On May 13, 2025, a woman court in Coimbatore Nine people convicted from Polachi Maximum punishment of imprisonment under Section 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code and for the remaining of his life. The court also honored seven victims with compensation of CORT 85 lakhs, including sexual harassment, which repeatedly hatched a conspiracy after having a conspiracy by the culprits between October 2016 and February 2019. According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Modus Aperandi of Conveals had befriended women before abroad and sexual harassment. The prosecution accused the video of repeatedly raping and raping women on various occasions to record sexual acts and use those clips. Sessions Judge R. The 658-Page decision given by Nandani Devi highlighted the challenges faced by the prosecution to prove their case to secure a punishment.
Did the victim exaggerate the crime against him?
The 19 -year -old college girl, the victim ‘A’, was the last victim of the convicts before being arrested in 2019. However, on February 24, 2019, he came out for the first time to register a police complaint, which revealed his anticadents. According to the prosecution, A1 (28 -year -old Rishawant alias N. Sabarirjan, a civil engineer by profession pretended to fall in love with the victim, took him to a place near a poultry farm in a car and sexually abused him on 12 February 2019. When he accepted it for his family members after a few days, his elder brother and his friends tracked the accused as well as his associates and found many videos of other women subject to sexual harassment by the gang. Therefore, the family decided to file a complaint after 12 days of misbehavior with the victim.
When the victim ‘A’ was removed before the trial court after six years, he also accused A1 of rape. However, the special public prosecutor of the CBI accepted to a large extent that such an exaggerated claims made by the victim for the first time before the trial court, and during the investigation, should not be given credibility before four investigating officers or two judicial magistrates.
After recording his submission, the court said, “It was quite possible that the victim did not want the accused to be avoided or impose a low sentence and hence, he could have chosen to make exaggerated allegations.”
Saying that a better version of the victim cannot be accepted by the court, the trial judge said, at the same time, the entire testimony of the victim cannot leave because of the exaggerated part only. Principle Falsus in Ano, Falsus in Omnibus (False in one thing, wrong in everything) There is no application in Indian courts, he said.
The judge said, “There is a marked difference between the exaggerated version and the false version,” the judge noticed that it was the duty of the court to squeeze Chaf from grain in the case of exaggeration or contradictions.
Finally, the trial court convicted the A1 for alleging the victim’s humility, but A2 (30 -year -old Financer K. Thirunvukkarasu) and A5 (28 -year -old Mani alias R. Manivanan were used for the crime) were acquitted from the allegations leveled against them for committing crime against the victim.
What was uninterrupted in the charge sheet related to the victim B?
The victim ‘B’ was also a final year college student. He was brutally raped on April 24, 2018 despite being informed by A1, A2, A3 (29 -year -old M. Satish), A4 (26 -year -old T. Vasantkumar) and A7 (29 -year -old Haron Alias T. Haronimus Paul) despite being informed on 24 April 2018, despite being informed on 24 April 2018. The first charge sheet filed by CBI Inspector Vijayavishnavi mentioned the incident in April 2018, but it was mentioned by the supplementary charge sheet filed by Inspector Pachyamal as November 2018.
The SPP told the court that the victim had especially mentioned the incident to the second investigating officer in November 2018, but did not mention any specific date or month to the first investigating officer. Nevertheless, it was not known how the first investigating officer mentioned the month in the first charge sheet as April 2018.
However, relying on the forensic report about the video shot during the gang rape, the trial court concluded that the crime took place only in April and not in November 2018. It was also said that the victim may have confusion in remembering the exact month as semester examinations typically take place during April as well as November. The judge also said that the prosecution failed to prove the use of a black car to kidnap the victim as it was purchased by A1 only on August 11, 2018.
Nevertheless, the judge convicted all the five accused for gang rape based on the oral testimony of the victim confirmed by electronic evidence.
Why was the SC/ST Act not entered into the SC/ST Act regarding the ‘C’ and ‘E’ of the victims?
According to the prosecution, the aggrieved ‘C’ was raped by A2, A5 and A6 in September 2018 and was raped by A1 of the final year of MBA ‘E1’ and subjected to criminal intimidation by A2 and A5. Since both the victims were of a scheduled caste, the defense counsel said that the entire prosecution started against them would fall to the ground. The lawyer said that in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or more, only one officer should investigate cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Act of 1989 and since only the officials had investigated the current case in the rank of the Inspector, all the allegations against the accused should be extended.
However, dismissing his argument, the trial judge stated that the SC/ST Act should not be implemented only because the victim was not evidence to prove that the crime was committed due to hatred.
How was A6 convicted for the rape of ‘D’ and ‘H’ of the victims, although he was not involved in any sexual act?
The trial court found the A2, A3 and A5 under the victim ‘D’ in October 2018 as a second -year college student for gang rape. A6 committed the crime when the crime was committed and then the victim was dropped into a car in the Polachi bus stand. Similarly, when eight out of nine accused raped ‘H’ mercilessly, a teacher in a private school, one after the other, A6 alone refused to indulge in any sexual act despite A5 alone A5 alone. Nevertheless, the trial court also convicted A6 for allegations of gang rape of both the victims as he was part of the gang.
Similarly, the court also convicted A2 for A2 for the gang rape of a beauty parlor employee, although sexual acts were done by A1 only by A1.
The trial judge said that on May 2, 2025, Raju alias Umakant vs. in its latest judgment in Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court said that it was not necessary for all persons in a gang to convince sexual acts for gang rape. This was enough, even though one of them has entered into an act in pursuance of the common intention among the gang members.
Why did not the victim ‘F’ not testify in the lead court to acquit the accused?
The prosecution case was that nine accused had sexually assaulted eight victims. However, one of them (victim F) did not come forward to testify before the court. According to the prosecution, the victim ‘F’ was kidnapped and raped by A1, A2, A3 and A7. The victim wrote a letter to the trial court, which expressed his inability to rendering before the court due to the prevailing position in her matrimonial house and the continuous medical treatment required for her new born child. Therefore, left without any alternative, the CBI had disputed the court with its examination.
The court acquitted all the four accused from raping her, but believed that no adverse conclusions could be drawn against the prosecution and the CBI could not deliberately get the witness back, especially when she could not refuse her to testify despite the best efforts.
How did the court deal with defense arguments?
Raksha raised many issues such as non -collection of CCTV footage to prove the non -avoidance of the victims’ mobile phones, the non -collection of CCTV footage to prove the kidnapping from public places, the failure of the prosecution in securing the clothes worn by the victims, the victims to undergo a medical examination to undergo a medical examination to undergo a medical examination. However, the trial judge rejected all such materials that in sexual offenses, oral evidences of the alone victims were sufficient to convict the accused if such evidences motivate the court’s trust.
The judge said, “Our judicial enthusiasm for estimated innocence should be moderated by practical need to make criminal justice powerful and realistic … Evidence beyond proper doubt does not mean evidence beyond the shadow of doubt. The law will fail to protect the community if he accepted the imaginary possibilities to save the court of justice,” said the judge said.
Published – May 31, 2025 09:30 AM IST
