Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran, Ms.Justice R.Poornima, JJ
Kalimuthu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The appellant herein is the sole accused deprived of the judgment of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under Protection of Children From the Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur,
2. On the complaint given by one Gurusamy, the paternal uncle of the minor girl, aged about 13 years, the respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.7 of 2016, against the appellant for offence under Sections 450 , 366(A), 376 , 506(i) IPC and 5(i)(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, on 31.03.2016.
3. The complaint marked as Ex.P.1 was a disclosure of cognizable offence committed by the appellant in the nature of repeated penetrative sexual assault on the victim child.
4. According to the complainant, the minor child is his brother's daughter. After the demise of her parents, she had been under the care and custody of her paternal uncle. The appellant, who is residing near his house, had befriended the child and been continuously abusing her sexually. When he noticed that the victim child is not concentrating in her studies, he enquired her and then found out that she had been sexually abused by the appellant and been subjecting her to sexual intercourse. Wh
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, particularly when the victim's testimony is inconsistent.
Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was overturned due to lack of penetrative evidence; modified conviction for sexual assault under relevant sections of the POCSO Act was upheld.
Point of law: Section 42(A) of the POCSO Act, Section 31 of Cr.P.C., need not be strictly followed while awarding the punishment of imprisonment for offence under the POCSO Act.
The conviction under aggravated sexual assault was set aside due to insufficient medical evidence; however, the appellant was convicted for lesser charges based on the established assault.
The legal age of consent is 18 years; any sexual intercourse with minors is statutory rape regardless of purported consent.
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.
The requirement for substantial evidence in sexual assault cases is underscored, with considerations for appropriate sentencing guidelines reflecting the nature of the offense.
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
