MADRAS HIGH COURT
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
Sarath Kumar – Appellant
versus
State Rep by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2017
Decided on 2.6.2025
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Sexual assault on girl child – Conviction and sentence – Two finger tests even if report is affirmative, cannot ipso facto, give rise to presumption of consent – Victim is a child and consent is not applicable – Victim aged 13 years had undergone mental trauma because of this incident resulting in her dropping from School – If evidence of victim inspires confidence of Court, Court shall convict accused – Conviction on sole testimony of victim if found reliable trustworthy conviction has to be confirmed – Conviction of accused by Sessions Judge, under Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is found justified – It is a well-reasoned judgment and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the entire records and set aside the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed in Special C.C.No.50 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. As per the prosecution case, the elder brother of the victim with his wife and children, the victim and her younger sister are residing in a hut in the premises of the bricklin where the elder brother of the victim and the sister-in-law of the victim are engaged as daily wage labourers in the bricklin. The Accused is also residing in a hut within the same premises. The victim was a student of 8th Standard studying in the School nearer to the bricklin within the local limits of Vennanthur Police Station within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.
2.2. As per the complaint lodged by the elder brother of the victim, the Accused is residing in a hut along with his family. The Accused is the son of Varadharaj, a labourer, like the elder brother of the victim working in the bricklin. On the intervening night of 28.08.2015, when the infant child of the elder brother of the victim was crying, he took the baby out of the hut to get fresh air to calm down the child. He observed his sister was missing when enquired the victim stated that she went out to attend nature’s call. After attending nature’s call when she returned to the hut, the Accused caught hold of her hand and gagged her mouth, pulled her inside the hut, forced her on the bed and the Accused undressed himself and thrust his male organ by lifting the dress worn by the victim. Hearing her pleas, to let her go, the elder brother of the victim kicked the door of the hut where the occurrence took place and entered the hut. On seeing the elder brother of the victim, the Accused pushed him down and ran away. He was shocked to see his sister/victim in a compromising position. She was pleading with him not to raise the issue as it will affect her life. He consoled her and brought here back to his hut. He did not prefer any complaint immediately to the Police. After about 10 days, on 12.09.2015, he lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Rasipuram. Based on the complaint of the elder brother of the victim, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram, registered a case in FIR in Crime No. 5 of 2015 and sent the original complaint and the original FIR to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram. The case was registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. She proceeded with the investigation. She prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P-12 and observation mahazar under Ex.P-13 in the presence of the witnesses Panneer Selvam and Siva Kumar. Panneer Selvam died before the case reached the trial. She arrested the Accused and produced him before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate with a requisition to subject him to medical examination regarding potency. She also took the victim to subject her to medical examination with a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate to subject the victim to medical examination. P.W-8 Dr.Sasireka, Gynaecologist, on duty at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Namakkal, examined the victim and issued certificate under Ex.P-9 stating that there are symptoms available that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. The Accused was produced before the Government Headquarters Hospital, Namakkal, where P.W-5 Dr.Murali examined him and issued medical certificate under Ex.P-4. Also, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rasipuram, had given a requisition to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to nominate a Magistrate for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistra
Vishnu alias Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra
Sexual assault on girl child – Conviction on sole testimony of victim if found reliable trustworthy conviction has to be confirmed – Consent is not applicable where victim is a child.
The court confirmed the conviction for sexual assault on a minor, emphasizing victim testimony's validity despite minor discrepancies; age precludes capacity for consent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the immateriality of the minor victim's consent in a rape case and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault when the....
The court affirmed that intoxication negates consent in cases of sexual assault against minors, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing the accused's guilt.
The reliability of the victim's testimony and medical evidence in cases of sexual offences, and the reasonableness of delay in filing the FIR due to the sensitive nature of such offences.
The presumption under the POCSO Act is rebuttable and requires foundational facts to be established beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.