BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
K. Anantha Perumal - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 59 of 2016
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376, 366(A) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 464 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Criminal Appeal - Procuration of minor girl - Offence of rape - Power to examine the accused - Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant against judgment of conviction made in Spl. S.C. convicting him under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year - Held, However, Trial Court, without properly considering fact that prosecution has failed to establish commission of offence by appellant, while appellant has come out with strong piece of evidence to prove his case, erred in convicting appellant and thus, judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court is liable to be setside - Further, to recapitulate, period of elopement is (secured) - POCSO Act came into effect - Article 20(1) of Constitution of India signifies that no penal provision can be given retrospective effect and thus, it is clear that appellant cannot be penalised for occurrence that has taken place prior to penal provision coming into force - Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 17.2.2016 made in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2015 convicting him under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The allegation against the appellant/accused is that he had induced PW3, the victim minor girl by name Divya, daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, made her to elope with him to Thekkadi and Coimbatore and had forcible intercourse with her.
3. The facts that give rise to filing of the present Criminal Appeal, in brief, are as under:-
(ii) On receipt of the complaint, Ex.P1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, PW15 had registered the same in CSR No. 581/2012 and placed it before the Inspector of Police, PW14 for investigation.
(iii) On 26.8.2012, PW14, the Inspector of Police registered the complaint in Crime No.553/2012 for offence punishable under Section 366(A) IPC, prepared the printed FIR, Ex.P8, took up the case for investigation and visited the scene of occurrence at 8.00 pm and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P9 and rough sketch, Ex.P10 in the presence of mahazar witnesses, PW8, Saravanan and PW10 Abbas. Then PW14 had enquired the witnesses, PW1 Rani, PW2 Kannan, PW4 Lakshmi, PW5 Anbu, PW8 Saravanan and PW10 Abbas and recorded their statements. Subsequently, on 27.8.2012, PW14 had enquired the witnesses PW6 Vignesh, PW7 Mano and one Easwaran and recorded their statements.
(iv) On 28.8.2012, at about 2.00 pm, PW14 had secured PW3 the victim girl and the appellant/accused, took them to the police station at about 2.15 pm and on obtaining statement from the victim girl at about 3.15 pm, arrested the appellant/accused and recorded his voluntary confession statement in the presence of witnesses, PW9 Mahendran and one Moovendran and thereafter, remanded the appellant/accused.
(v) On 29.8.2012, PW14 had produced the victim girl and gave requisition to the court for subjecting the victim girl and the appellant/accused for medical check up.
(vi) PW13, Dr. Juliyana Jayanthi, who examined the victim girl on 29.8.2012, had issued the Medical Report, Ex.P6 contending that her examination revealed that the victim girl was not virgin and symptoms were found to show that she had sexual intercourse. Further, PW13 had examined the appellant/accused on 30.8.2012 and issued the Medical Report Ex.P7 affirming his potency.
(vii) On 30.8.2012, PW14 had enquired the witnesses PW12 Ananthi, PW11 Thirumalaichami and one Maheswaran and recorded their statements.
(viii) On 3.9.2012, PW14, having received the Medical Reports, enquired PW13 Dr. Juliyana Jayanthi and PW15 Radha, Sub Inspector of Police and recorded their statements.
(ix) On the same day, as an outcome of his investigation, PW14 had altered the case to one punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 IPC and sent the Alteration Report, Ex.P11 to the court.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age as on the date of the incident. Under these circumstances, the accused cannot be held guilty of o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on documentary evidence, such as the victim's school certificate, and the testimony of the victim to determine the accused's guilt und....
Conviction under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Section 4 upheld for enticing minor (under 18) by suicide threat and penetrative sexual assault; consent immaterial; victim's corroborated testimony and medica....
The conviction in sexual offences requires credible and reliable evidence, especially regarding the victim's age, and reliance solely on secondary evidence without primary proof is insufficient.
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.