IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
T. Ezhumalai - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for the appellant's defense (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discrepancies in witness testimonies (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. assessment of evidence inadequate for conviction (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion of appeal and acquittal order (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment dated 23.12.2016 made in Special Sessions Case No. 18 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Vellore. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| Convicted for the offence | Period of Sentence |
| Section 363 of Indian Penal Code | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
| Section 366 of Indian Penal Code | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. |
| Section 6 read with Section 5 (m) of POCSO Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. |
1.2 The punishments were ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone by the Accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. P.W-1 is the mother of P.W-2, victim girl, who was aged 4 years at the time of occurrence. P.W-1 is residing at Door No.144, Thuthikadu, Kollaimedu Village. P.W-1 is a coolie worker and her husband is a gardener. It is stated that P.W-1 knows the Accused. According to P.W-1, on 02.08.2014 at about 4.15 p.m, one Ajithkumar informed her that the Accused had taken her daughter/P.W-2 in his two wheeler. Since the Accused has got bad antecedents, P.W-1 went in search of her daughter in the vicinity. P.W-1 also went to the house of the Accused and caused enquiry with his brother, who was present there. When questioned, the brother of the Accused informed P.W-1 that his brother had left his mobile phone in his house and he will come back. When P.W-1 was returning back to her home, P.W-2 was coming back near Perumal Temple land. When P.W-1 enquired, P.W-2 informed her that the Accused had taken her to a pit, removed her undergarments and inserted his penis on the vagina. P.W-2 also stated that she cried in pain and she also noticed blood in her vaginal area. Therefore, P.W-1 took P.W-2 to her house and informed the incident to her husband. P.W-1 also noticed blood stains in the vaginal portion of P.W-2 and also contusions. Later in the day at about 7 p.m., when the husband of P.W-1 reached home, both of them went to the house of Jayaseelan (P.W-5), the President of the Village and narrated to him about the incident. Later, P.W-1 also taken P.W-2 to the hospital and admitted her. Since it is a medico legal case, intimation was given to the All Women Police Station, Vellore.
2.2. On the basis of the intimation received from the hospital, P.W-18/Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant/P.W-1. On the basis of such complaint, the case in Crime No. 40 of 2014 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Immediately, P.W-18 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and drawn a sketch as well as Observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Mani/P.W-8 and one Jagadeesan. She also recorded the statement of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-4, P.W-5 and P.W-8. Later, on the basis of reliable information about the Accused, she proceeded to Pandian Nagar Bus Stop at about 13.00 hours on 03.08.2014 where she arrested the Accused in the presence of the witnesses namely Murugan, Son of Elumalai and another Murugan (P.W-9), Son of Kanna
Ganesan vs. State Represented by its Inspector of Police
State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash
State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony
Sohrab & Anr. Vs. The State of M.P.
Bharwada Bhogini Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat
Prithu @ Prithi Chand & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
State of U.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar & Ors.
M. Veerabatharappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu
The court held that convictions under sexual assault statutes require robust proof beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the significance of consistent witness testimony and corroborative medical evid....
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....
The main legal point established is the significance of the child's testimony in cases of sexual assault, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, and the need for proper protection of the ....
The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and requires the prosecution to establish foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumptio....
The court confirmed the conviction for sexual assault on a minor, emphasizing victim testimony's validity despite minor discrepancies; age precludes capacity for consent.
Statutorial presumption u/s 29 and 30 of POCSO Act certainly places a persuasive burden on appellant to show that he does not possess requisite culpable mental state for offence for which he is prose....
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.