SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4251

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dharani Kasinathan
For the Respondent: G.V. Kasthuri

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 evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363 and 366 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 read with Section 5(m) - Conviction of Accused under multiple charges, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines, later claimed perverse based on lack of concrete evidence and hostile witnesses. (Paras 1, 19)

(B) Evidentiary Standard - Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimonies and medical evidence undermine the prosecution's assertions. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault against a minor. The conviction was challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence and discrepancies among witness accounts. P.W-1, mother of the victim, reported the incident following an alleged witness account, but key witnesses turned hostile.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was flawed due to reliance on non-conclusive medical evidence and the lack of corroborative witness testimonies, leading to an unsupported conviction.

Issues: Key issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the adequacy of medical reports, and the implications of hostile witnesses on the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to provide reliable evidence to sustain conviction, highlighting the inadequacy of the evidence presented in the original trial, which did not withstand scrutiny.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

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 offencePeriod of Sentence
Section 363 of Indian Penal CodeTo 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 CodeTo 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 ActTo 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top