Point of Law: Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to guilt”.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) r/w. 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment made in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Court, Coimbatore, convicting the appellant under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in Spl.C.C.No.24 of 2014, finding the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 3 r/w Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and convicting and sentencing him to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant and the prosecutrix / victim are local residents of Kettimallanpudur, Anaimalai. The parents of the prosecutrix / victim were coolies and that she has got one elder brother and one younger brother. After completing her X std., the prosecutrix / victim was working as a machine operator in Umesh Pencil Company for the past two years. The appellant was in speaking terms with the victim for the past one year. Five days prior to the date of occurrence viz. on 16.01.2014, the victim along with her family members had gone to attend the funeral of her grandfather and she had returned to the village on 16.01.2014 and at about 7.30 p.m. while the prosecutrix / victim returned from public toilet after attending nature's call, the appellant / accused along with other accused had gagged her mouth and forcibly dragged her into a nearby bush and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby, the appellant was charged for the offence u/s.3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called the POCSO Act) and the other accused 2 & 3 were charged for the offences u/s.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act r/w.34 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case:

On 17.01.2014, PW6 viz. T.Veeramal had received an information from the Pollachi Government Hospital over telephone with regard to the admission and treatment of the Prosecutrix / victim.

On receipt of the information, PW6 went to the Pollachi Government Hospital, recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix / victim viz. Ex.P1 and on the basis of the said statement, registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2014 viz.Ex.P5 as against the named accused Harishankar, the appellant herein for an offence u/s.3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and forwarded the case in Crime No.11 of 2015 for investigation to the Inspector of Police viz.PW7. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. after receipt of the complaint and F.I.R. in Crime No.11 of 2014, PW7, the then Inspector of Police had taken up the case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence and had prepared an Observation Mahazar vix. Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch viz. Ex.P6 in the presence of witnesses one Nagaraj (PW5) and one Rameshkumar. On the same day, PW6 went to Pollachi Government Hospital, and examined the Prosecutrix / victim and thereafter examined of witnesses Parvathy, Karupasamy, Selathaal, Ponnusamy Gounder, Muniyandi and Mahendran and recorded their statements. On the same day, gave request for subjecting the prosecutrix/victim for medical examination.

On 17.01.2014, PW7 in the presence of one Parvathy and Karupasamy recovered the dresses viz. M.O.1 to MO4 from the Prosecutrix / victim through recovery mahazar viz Ex.P7. On the same day at about 12.00 noon, PW7 had arrested the accused in the presence of one Parvathy and Karupasamy, recorded his confession statement and recovered the dresseses viz. M.O.5 to M.O.8 from him through recovery mahazar viz. Ex.P8 and subsequently, sent the accused for remand.

On 20.01