IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Parimala and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 677 of 2023, Crl. M.P. Nos. 5113, 5121 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
POCSO Act - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 227, 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C - Special C.C. No. 11 of 2019 - Sections 376(2), 376(2)(d), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(l), 376C, 313, 109 & 506(i) of IPC - Sections 5(f), 5(l), 5(k), 6, 16 & 17 of POCSO Act - The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed by the petitioners/A4, A5 & A7 against the order of dismissal dated 20.03.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 1176 of 2022 in Spl. C.C. No. 11 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved sexual abuse of a deaf and dumb girl over a period of time by multiple accused, including the petitioners. The victim was forced into sexual acts, pregnancy, and abortion, leading to a criminal case under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements and materials in the charge sheet established a prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused, and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, confirming the trial court's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' claim of juvenility, delay in lodging the FIR, and the credibility of the prosecution case. The court also considered the dismissal of the quash petition and the direction to complete the trial within a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discharge petition should assess whether the statements and materials in the charge sheet make a prima facie case to proceed with the trial, rather than considering potential conviction. The court also highlighted the continuing nature of the offence under Section 472 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, confirming the trial court's order, with a reminder to give top priority to conclude the trial within a stipulated time.
JUDGMENT :
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of dismissal dated 20.03.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 1176 of 2022 in Spl. C.C. No. 11 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore by allowing the present Criminal Revision Case.
1. The petitioners/A4, A5 & A7 have filed a petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 1176 of 2022 in Special C.C. No. 11 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore (trial Court). The trial Court vide order, dated 20.03.2023 dismissed the same, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent/victim girl is a deaf and dumb by birth and she joined deaf and dumb school in Athupalayam and another victim girl/LW-2 joined school at Murugapalayam at Tirupur district. They studied up to 7th std. A1 is the Correspondence of the school, who is also a deaf and dumb. A2 is the Treasurer and A3 is the Supervisor. A4 is the hostel warden. A5 and A6 are deaf and dumb studied in the school and closely associated with A1. A7 is the Physical Education Teacher. A2 to A4 threatened and forced the students studying in the school to give in to the lust of A1. When the 2nd respondent aged about 13 years, A1 called her to his room, made her to sit on his lap, kissed and molested her. Since the 2nd respondent hailing from poor family, she was in need and support of the school. Taking advantage of the position, A1 committed penetrative sexual assault on her. The 2nd respondent transferred to another school from Athupalayam to Murugapalayam school. While she was studying there, A1 through A2 called the 2nd respondent's mother and informed that the 2nd respondent unable to study further and she can be used as domestic help for A1. The 2nd respondent's mother insisted that her daughter to continue her study and get computer training, so that she can sustain herself independently in future. The 2nd respondent was forced to stay in the school and asked to do domestic works of washing clothes and vessels.
3. In the year 2007, A1's wife Jayanthi delivered a baby and the 2nd respondent was asked to be a help for her. During that period, A1 forcibly took the 2nd respondent to bedroom and committed penetrative sexual assault. Further, she was threatened that her relationship with Sathivel would be exposed and thereby, retained her forcibly in his custody. A4 and A5 forcibly administered liquor to 2nd respondent. When she was in semi-conscious stage, taking advantage of it, A1 continued his sexual assault on her. Due to which, the 2nd respondent became pregnant and she was forcibly given juice and horlicks to ensure forcible abortion. Further, A1 and A4 questioned the pregnancy of the 2nd respondent. A5 and A6 forcibly aborted the foetus by administering pills. Since the abortion not complete, she was taken to Doctor Sumathi Rajan at Pollachi and DNC done. On the complaint, a case in Crime No. 207 of 2017 was registered for offence under Sections 376(2), 376(2)(d), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(l), 376C, 313, 109 & 506(i) of IPC on 09.05.2017 against six accused. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed for offence under Sections 313, 109 & 506(i) of IPC and Sections 5(f), 5(l), 5(k), 6, 16 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 citing 26 witnesses as LW-1 to LW-26 and documents before the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 03 of 2018 and thereafter, the same was transferred to the file of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore and renumbered as Special C.C. No. 11 of 2019. During the pende
Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Bhavesh Pabari
Bhagirath Kanoria and Others vs. State of M.P. (1984) 4 SCC 222
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others
Kuldeepshingh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka
State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Singh
AI
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case to proceed with the trial, considering the continuing nature of the offence and the direction to complete the trial within a ....
The invocation of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. necessitates strong evidence beyond a prima facie case; mere allegations without substantiation are insufficient for summoning a person as an accused.
The court affirmed that a prima facie case is necessary for proceeding with trial, and delay in filing a complaint is not automatically grounds for discharge.
A judgment must explicitly formulate points for determination and provide a reasoned analysis of all evidence, including defense testimony. Failure to address the defense case, provide a logical narr....
The court affirmed convictions under POCSO, emphasizing the reliability of the minor's testimony alongside corroborative evidence, permitting procedural presumptions regarding the offenses and the ro....
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.