Conviction
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
John Kennady - Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Trichy - Respondent
Crl.A(MD).No. 192 of 2019
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:T.J. Ebenezer Charles, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Appellant:T.J. Ebenezer Charles, Advocate. For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The credibility of the victim's testimony and the applicability of the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act.
Headnote:
POCSO - Sexual Offences - Sections 5(l)(m)(n) r/w Section 6 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, John Kennady, was convicted for sexually assaulting his eleven-year-old daughter. The prosecution's case relied on the victim's testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be credible and convincing, and rejected the appellant's defense that the victim had an affair with the caretaker. The court also noted the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.
Issues: The key issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony, the defense's attempt to discredit the victim, and the applicability of the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's clear and convincing testimony, the absence of rebutted evidence, and the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act to uphold the conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2017 dated 27.04.2018.)
R. Hemalatha, J.
1.The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order, dated 27.04.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2017 in and by which the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 5(l)(m)(n) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and sentenced as under:
| Sl.No. | Sentence | |
| 1. | U/s.5(l) r/w Sec.6 of POCSOAct | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple |
| 2 | U/s.5(m) r/w Sec.6 of POCSOAct | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple |
| 3. | U/s.5(n) r/w Sec.6 of POCSO Act | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple |
The trial court further directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, John Kennady, is a resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Palakarai, Tiruchirappalli and father of four children. His wife had left him and children to fend for themselves. The eldest of the children, a eleven year old child [P.W-2] is the victim. According to the prosecution, the victim was subjected to sexual assault by none other than her own father and it was only her neighbours, Palaniammal [P.W-6], Janaki [P.W-3] and Kowsalya [P.W-10] joined together and decided to inform the Child Line and Kowsalya [P.W-10] informed the Child Line over phone on 05.04.2017. On receiving the information over phone, Terasammal [P.W-1] and Tamilselvi [P.W-5] both working in Child Line, Trichy, visited the address and enquired about the alleged complaint. When Palaniammal [P.W-6] and Janaki [P.W-3] confirmed the same, Terasammal[P.W-1] lodged a complaint [Ex.P-2] along with a Proforma[Ex.P-1] for providing information as per Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. Tmt.S.Jeyarani [P.W-15] the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort, received the complaint [Ex.P-2] from P.W-1 and registered an FIR [Ex.P-3], in Crime No.6 of 2017, of All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort, against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 5(m) 5(n) r/w Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. She took up investigation, went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P-15] in the presence of the witnesses Anthony Sahayaraj [P.W-8] and Ruban [P.W-9]. She also prepared a Rough Sketch [Ex.P-14]. She examined the victim child and P.W-1 and recorded their statements.
4. On 06.04.2017, P.W-15 sent the victim child to Government Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, for medical examination along with Tmt.Hemalatha [P.W-12], Head Constable of Police, All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort and Selvi [not examined] Constable attached to All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort.
5. Dr.Seeniammal [P.W-7] physically examined the child and took the smear of vagina and sent it for analysis. However, the examination of the vaginal smear and swab did not reveal the presence of any semen or sperm. Dr.Seeniammal [P.W-7] had opined that the victim girl was subjected to sexual intercourse and that her hymen was found torn. It was also mentioned that the child had not attained puberty. The Accident Register and Discharge Summary were marked as Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-18 respectively. The age of the victim child was also determined between 11 and 12 by the radiologist. Thiru.Sirajudeen [P.W-4] Headmaster of the Corporation Middle Sch
