Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Madhan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
For the Respondent: M/s. A. Veeramarthini, Legal Aid Counsel.

Case Summary: State v. Dinesh (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021, Madras High Court)

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: State (Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, The Nilgiris).
• Respondent: Dinesh (accused).
• Case originated from Crime No. 1 of 2018 under Section 9(m) r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 506(i) IPC. Charge sheet filed before Special Judge (Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam). Trial court (Spl.C.C. No. 6 of 2018) acquitted accused on 18.12.2019.[21001377460001][21001377460002] (!)

Key Facts

• Victim (female child, aged ~7-9 years as per birth certificate Ex.P10 dated 04.09.2010; incident on 17.04.2018 or 15.04.2018) lived with grandmother; parents were coolies at work spot.[21001377460003][21001377460007][21001377460009]
• Grandmother hospitalized; mother and aunt attended in turns, leaving victim and brother (aged ~9) alone at home.[21001377460003] (!)
• Accused (neighbor) entered house, lifted victim, bit her cheek and lips, causing her to cry. Brother intervened; mother arrived soon after, noticed crying but accused claimed innocent play and fled.[21001377460003][21001377460007] (!) (!)
• Victim disclosed biting to mother; brother corroborated. They visited accused's home (he absconded); complaint lodged next day.[21001377460003]
• Victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P2) consistent with trial testimony.[21001377460004][21001377460009]

Prosecution Evidence

• PW1 (Mother/Complainant): Narrated sequence; victim crying post-incident, disclosure of biting. (!) [21001377460011]
• PW2 (Victim): Detailed accused lifting her twice, biting cheek/lips while she hid; cried out; brother and mother intervened. (!)
• PW3 (Brother): Eyewitness; saw biting on cheek/lips, pulled accused. (!) (!) [21001377460009]
• PW8 (Neighbor): Eyewitness; saw accused with victim (~5:30 PM), heard cries ("leave me"), biting on mouth; mother arrived as she approached. (!) [21001377460011]
• 18 witnesses (PW1-PW18), 15 documents (Ex.P1-P15); no defense evidence.[21001377460002]
• Medical exam: No bite marks or penetration noted, but force of bite varies. (!)

Trial Court Findings (Acquittal)

• Relied on lack of independent witnesses (beyond family), no bite marks/injuries, immaterial contradictions (e.g., family living arrangements), doctor's evidence.[21001377460004][21001377460005]

Appellate Court Analysis and Findings (P. Velmurugan, J.)

• Standard of Review: Appellate court interferes with acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable alternative view possible. Here, only one view: guilt under POCSO.[21001377460006][21001377460011]
• Reliability of Evidence:
• Consistent victim statements (to mother, Magistrate under S.164 Cr.P.C., trial); corroborated by brother (PW3), neighbor (PW8). (!) (!) [21001377460009][21001377460011]
• Ocular (eyewitness) evidence prevails over medical (no bite marks immaterial; depends on force; mere touching with sexual intent suffices under S.9(m) POCSO). (!) (!) [21001377460012]
• Sexual Intent: Lifting/biting child (under 12) in absence of adults constitutes offense under S.9(m) r/w S.10 POCSO; no need for injury proof. (!) [21001377460008]
• Rejects Defense: No false motive; accused's "play" claim implausible given crying/disclosure; absconding noted.[21001377460005][21001377460009]
• No Conviction under IPC S.506(i): Insufficient evidence.[21001377460012]
• Trial court erred: Ignored POCSO object (child protection), over-relied on discrepancies/doctor, perversely discarded eyewitnesses.[21001377460010][21001377460012]

Result

• Appeal partly allowed: Acquittal set aside for POCSO offense; accused convicted under S.9(m) r/w S.10; directed to appear for sentencing (17.03.2021).[21001377460012][21001377460013]
• No other case citations used or needed per query.