Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Krishnan - Petitioner
Versus
The State by Inspector of Police, Erode - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 211 of 2015
Decided On : 13-07-2022
POCSO Act - Sexual Assault - Section 8 - [POCSO Act, Section 8] - The court discussed the evidence and presumption of act and mens rea under the POCSO Act, and how the accused rebutted the presumption through defense witnesses and documents, leading to the decision to set aside the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault under Section 8 of the POCSO Act based on the complaint by a father of a minor boy. The prosecution presented evidence of the incidents and the accused's threat to the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the incidents mentioned in the charge and that the accused rebutted the presumption of culpable mental state through defense witnesses and documents. The trial court's failure to properly appreciate the evidence led to a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of the alleged incidents, the presumption of culpable mental state, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the incidents, the accused's rebuttal of the presumption of culpable mental state, and the miscarriage of justice due to the trial court's failure to properly appreciate the evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the judgment convicting the accused was set aside. The fine amount paid, if any, was ordered to be refunded, and the bail bond executed was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 06.04.2015 made in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode and set aside the same by allowing this criminal appeal.)
1. The Court of Sessions, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode in Spl.C.C No.2/2014, held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act (2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R.I. for each count and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (each count) in default, one year S.I. (each count). Thus, total period of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and total fine amount Rs.1,00,000/- imposed.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed by the accused.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint by one Karthikeyan, father of a minor boy aged about 14 years, the case was registered against the Principal of the Mother’s Matriculation School, Paraiyur, for offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act in Crime No.552/2013, dated 20/11/2013 at 11.00 a.m.
4. As per the said complaint marked as Ex.P-13, the son of the complainant studying 10th standard, on 20/11/2013 morning, did not go to his School. When enquired, he informed that the Principal of the School frequently calls him to his room under the pretext of taking tuition and touch his private part. He is threaten by the Principal, if he discloses to anyone about his indecent act, his mark in practicals will be reduced. Fearing that, he refused to go to school. His son also informed that the latest incident happened on 18/11/2013 between 7.30 pm to 8.00 p.m. Other 10th standard students A, B, C and D (their names are redacted) also told him that the Principal indulge with similar sexual assault to them and they cried to him.
5. The defacto complainant immediately called the parents of other students and gathered before the School at 8.00 a.m. Hearing the news, Revenue Officials, School Education Department Officials and Police came to the school. The parents and Students sought action against the Principal for his illegal act of sexual assault against minor boys.
6. Based on the material placed by the respondent police collected during the investigation, the trial Court framed charge against the Principal of that School for offences under Section 8 of POCSO Act, (5 counts). The charge framed reads as below:-
7. To prove the above charge, the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to P.W-13. Marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14. The accused examined D.W-1 to D.W-4 and marked Ex.D-1 to Ex D-3.
8. Out of 5 alleged victim minor boys, two turned hostile and one not examined. Two of them were examined as P.W-4 and P.W-8. Instead of their names, these two witnesses will be referred as “X” and “Y” respectively.
9. The Trial Court held the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, (2 counts) based on the evidence and relying the presumption 'of act' under Section 29 and 'mens rea' under Section 30 of the POCSO Act.
10. The Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused pleaded that, the true fact of the case is that, P.W-4 was caught with a drawing expressing his love to a girl (Ex.D-1). He was warned for his indiscipline and his parents were called. His mother and aunty came to the school and gave apology letter (Ex.D-2). P.W-4 also gave a letter that, he will not repeat the mistake (Ex.D-3). While so
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
