Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Thangaraj - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (East) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2017
Decided On : 18-03-2025
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal had been filed by the Appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 passed in Spl. C.C. No.8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 3 (a) read with 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:
According to P.W-2 she did not reveal it to her parents immediately. When she was questioned by P.W-1/mother as to why she was looking dull, she replied that she was not keeping good health. Thereafter, on 14.11.2014, P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-4 went to Madurai to meet the sister of the victim girl at Madurai. On return, P.W-2 disclosed the incident to P.W-1- mother. Therefore, on 22.11.2014, a complaint, under Ex.P-1 was given to the All Women Police Station, Coimbatore (East) based on which the case in Crime No. 39 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Ex.P-14 is the First Information Report.2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-14, P.W-16, Inspector of Police, taken up investigation and recorded the statement of the victim girl. She also went to the place of occurrence and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P-15 and observation mahazar under Ex.P-3 in the presence of witnesses Dass P.W-6 and Muruganandam P.W-7. She also enquired P.W-1/mother, P.W- 3/Lakshmi/sister and P.W-4-Nagaraj/Father and recorded their statement. On 23.11.2014, she arrested the Accused in this case at Singanallur Bus Stop and remanded him to judicial custody. She has also subjected the victim girl-P.W- 2 as well as the Accused to medical examination and recorded the statement of the Doctors. After concluding her investigation, she laid the final report against the Appellant for the offences under Sections 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Magisterial Level, Coimbatore.
2.3. On receipt of the charge sheet filed by P.W-16, summon was sent to the Accused. On his appearance, copies of the documents relied on by the Prosecution were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offence for which the final report was laid against the Appellant has to be tried by the Court of Sessions, the records were forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore. The Accused was also bound over to the said Court.
2.4. On appearance of the Accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore, had framed charges against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) r/w.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Appellant- Accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered.
2.5. In
The conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was overturned due to doubts about the victim's age and the credibility of the evidence presented.
The court confirmed the conviction for sexual assault on a minor, emphasizing victim testimony's validity despite minor discrepancies; age precludes capacity for consent.
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
Point of law: There can be no iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable, a conviction can be based. However, in the case on hand, the testimony ....
Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine age of a child in conflict with law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the immateriality of the minor victim's consent in a rape case and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault when the....
Consent under threat is not valid in law. Victim's age must be determined by appropriate legal standards to ensure protection under the POCSO Act.
The court emphasized that the school certificate is the best proof of age and followed the procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act to determine the age of the victim. The court held that consent is ....
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
