The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was overturned due to procedural violations, illustrating the necessity of adhering to legal protocols in sexual assault cases involving minors.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The sole accused, Liyakath Ali, in Cr.No.334 of 2013 registered by the respondent, Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District, under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC and under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment, dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, in Spl.C.No.85 of 2016.

2.After investigation, the respondent Police had filed final report charging the appellant with commission of offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC and under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After trial, the appellant had been convicted as follows:

3. It had also been held that out of the fine amount, Rs.50,000/- should be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of the victim child till she attains the age of majority.

4. The victim child shall be called xxx in the course of this judgment.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.11.2013 at around 02.30 pm., xxx, who was aged about 12-13 years at the time of occurrence, was playing near the house of the accused. The accused could be termed as a neighbour. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused enticed xxx to come into his house and he held her tightly and when she tried to wriggle out, the accused closed the front door and thereby, unlawfully restrained her in the house. It is alleged that he forcefully removed her nightie and actually tore the nightie and when she cried and questioned the accused as to why he is so behaving, when she considered him as her father, the accused still did not leave her, but removed her panties and crushed her breasts and committed penetrative sexual assault, thereby, committing the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and when xxx further resisted, the accused took hold of her head and dashed her on the ground and caused swelling injuries on the right side of the head and then pushed her to wall, wherein, she suffered further injuries on the lower parts of both her legs owing to the small iron rods fixed on the wall and thereby, committing the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that xxx then ran out and informed about this incident to PW-5, Rani, who was also a neighbour.

6. PW-5, Rani, immediately took xxx to Shanmugathai, PW-3, the grandmother of xxx. Then immediately contacted the mother of xxx, Gangadevi, PW-1, over phone. The mother of xxx, Gangadevi, PW-1, was working as a saleswoman in a textile shop. On receiving this information over phone, PW-1, Gangadevi, immediately rushed to her house by about 03.00 pm. She was informed that the accused had called x