Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 854
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Sujithkumar @ Sonaimuthu - Appellant
Versus
State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparangundram, Madurai Dist., (Crime No.111/2013) - Respondent
Crl. A.(MD) No.394 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Asif Mohammed for Mr. G. Kannan.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Sivakumar, Govt. Adv. (Crl. Side)
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence of a victim's age to establish charges under the POCSO Act, and failure to do so results in acquittal.
Headnote:
POCSO - Criminal Appeal - Section 5(l), 5(J)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act - The court discussed the provisions of the POCSO Act, particularly Sections 5(l), 5(J)(ii), and 6, which address sexual offenses against children. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the victim's age and the accused's knowledge of it to establish guilt. The interpretation of the age proof requirements under the POCSO Act was pivotal in the court's decision to acquit the accused, as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the victim's age.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a neighbor of the victim girl, was accused of having a sexual relationship with her under false pretenses, resulting in her pregnancy. He was convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The victim later turned hostile, leading to questions about the prosecution's evidence, particularly regarding the victim's age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age, which is crucial for establishing the charges under the POCSO Act. The evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate that the accused had sexual intercourse with the knowledge that the victim was a minor.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the age of the victim girl and whether the accused had knowledge of her age at the time of the alleged offenses under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without conclusive evidence of the victim's age, the charges under the POCSO Act could not be sustained. The requirement for authenticated documentation to prove age was emphasized, and the failure to meet this standard led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the POCSO Act. The order for compensation to the victim was upheld, and any fines paid were to be refunded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the judgment Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court-POCSO Act cases), Madurai, dated 28.03.2022 and set aside the same and acquit the accused from the charge framed against him.)
The appellant, who is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court-POCSO Act cases), Madurai, filed this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court-POCSO Act cases), Madurai. The learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 28.03.2022 and found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-
| Accused | Convicted under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment/fine imposed |
| Sole Accused | Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act | Rigorous Imprisonment ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. |
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/Sole accused is the neighbour of the victim girl/P.W.1. The appellant was already married and he was having two children. The appellant had love affair with the victim girl and he had sexual intercourse with her several times by giving false promise to marry her. Due to which, she became pregnant. On the basis of the complaint given by the victim girl/P.W.1, the respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.111 of 2013 for the offences under Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “POCSO Act”). Thereafter, the respondent police arrested the accused and conducted investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on file by the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court-POCSO Act cases), Madurai, in Spl.S.C.No.52 of 2016. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and after his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and hence the trial commenced against the accused.
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and exhibited 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. The learned trial Judge thereafter questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the relevant question and the accused denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the accused. The accused examined D.W.1 and exhibited one document as Ex.D.1.
4. The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W.1 deposed that the appellant had love affair with the victim girl and he had sexual intercourse with her several times by giving false promise of marrying her. Due to which, she became pregnant. Thereafter, he married the victim girl. After the pregnancy, she has not been taken care of by the appellant. Hence, she made a complaint before the respondent police. She turned hostile. In the said circumstances, the above offence under Section 5(l) r/w 5(J)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act is not made out.
5.1. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim girl. To prove the age of the victim girl, P.W.11/ retired Headmaster of the Madurai Kaveer Nagar Panchayat Middle School, deposed that the victim girl studied upto 7th standard. He further deposed that there was a entry in the school relating to the date of the birth of the victim girl. As per the entry, the date of the birth of the victim girl is 10.03.1997. He further deposed that he admitted the victim the girl in the fourth standard on 19.06.2008. In this regard
