SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Balasubramani – Appellant
Versus
State rep by the Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Namakkal – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 826 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :T. Muruganantham, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311, 313, 374 (2) - POCSO Act, 2013 - Section 6 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - 506(ii) - Criminal Appeal - Appellant contended there was an inordinate delay in lodging complaint by victim and that entire theory of prosecution is not true - Appellant was not given opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses - Public Prosecutor contended prosecution proved all charges against accused beyond reasonable doubts and that though petition filed by appellant to recall all witnesses under Section 311 Cr.PC was allowed by the Sessions Judge on payment of Rs.250/- for each witnesses towards batta, appellant did not pay batta and allowed petition to be dismissed – Held court frequently come across cases, especially under POCSO Act, in which witnesses are not cross-examined on same day after recording of their examination-in-chief - Witnesses are recalled under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for purpose of cross-examination and at that time, they are made to resile from their earlier statements in chief-examination – Sometimes they are not even subjected to cross-examination and at appellate stage, accused cry foul and seek remand of matter to trial Court for purpose of cross-examination of witnesses - Appellate Court cannot remand case to trial Court without first setting aside judgment and order of conviction - Appellate Court would have to first set aside judgment and order of conviction and only then, remand case to trial Court to recall witnesses and give an opportunity to accused to cross-examine them - Once judgment and order of trial Court is set aside, accused cannot remain in prison and he has to be perforce released from prison - If matter is so remanded, prosecution witnesses may not even be available or even if available, they may not remember minute facts or may even turn hostile - Criminal justice system cannot be subverted in this manner - Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :-

R. Hemalatha, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying to set aside the judgment passed in Spl.C.C.No.3/2016 dated 16.06.2017 on the file of Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.)

1. The Present appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Namakkal, against the appellant in Spl. C.C. No.3 of 2016 as detailed hereunder.

S.No.

Conviction

Sentence

1.

U/s. 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012

Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.

2.

U/s. 506(ii) IPC

3 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

The learned Sessions Judge also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:

    i. The victim child (P.W.1) was 16 years of age and was studying XI standard at Mallasamuthiram Government Higher Secondary school. The appellant, father of the victim child, was residing at Devanankuruchi with his family consisting of his wife Kasthuri(P.W.2), his daughter, the victim (P.W.1) and his son Gokulhari.

ii. The victim attained puberty when she was studying 6th standard and according to the victim (P.W.1), her father, the appellant, forced himself upon her and when this was objected by her, he cajoled her by saying that this is not uncommon and is happening in every house and continued to have penetrative sex with his daughter. The further deposition of the victim child was that her father used to enquire her as to whether she had her menstrual cycle every month and whenever she missed her cycle, her father used to get her tablets to make it regular. When the victim was studying VIII standard, P.W.1’s mother (P.W.2) underwent hysterectomy operation in Government Hospital, Erode, and after discharge, stayed with her mother Ponnuthayee (P.W.6) at Thattankuttai for 4 months. Therefore, the appellant shifted his family to Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, and got the victim admitted in IX standard in a school over there. Even during that time, the appellant abused her daughter sexually and when the mother of the victim came back home, the appellant made his wife drink beer in order to make her sleep so that she might not know what he was doing with his daughter. After 4 or 5 years, P.W.1, realising the wrongful act of her father, threatened him that she would inform her mother about what is happening to her. In turn, the appellant threatened her with dire consequences of killing her and her mother.

iii. P.W.1 narrated the ordeal undergone by her to her relatives Tmt.Meenakshi (P.W.5) and Poovathi (P.W.4),who in turn informed Tmt.Kasthuri (P.W.2), the mother of the victim, after which, P.W.1 and P.W.2 left the house of the appellant and started living with the mother of P.W.2.

iv. P.W.1 thereafter called the childline on 17.09.2013 by dialing 1098. Tmt.Mailambigai (P.W.7), working in District child Protection Unit, Namakkal, attended the call and enquired the child victim (P.W.1). The victim narrated all the incidents to her and sought for help. P.W.7 informed the same to Child Welfare Committee and met P.W.1 in person. Tmt.M.Vijayalakshmi (P.W.10), a team member of Childline, Namakkal, accompanied P.W.7. Both of them took P.W.1 with them and on the same day Tmt.P.Vijayalakshmi (P.W.9), Counsellor, Child Protection Unit, Namakkal, counselled P.W.1 and on the next day, i.e., 18.09.2013, P.W.7 and P.W.10 took P.W.1 to Komarapalayam Police Station, where P.W.1 lodged a written complaint (Ex.P.1) with the police against her father.

v. Thiru. Manickam (P.W.17), Special Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered FIR (Ex.P7) in Komarapalayam Police Station Crime No.591 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 354, 376 (2) (f) (i) (n), 506(ii) IPC and 5

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top