Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
Anandh – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2019
Decided On : 24-06-2025
For the Appellant : B. Vasudevan
For the Respondent: S. Raja Kumar
The court affirmed that credible testimony of child victims can suffice to uphold convictions under the POCSO Act, accentuating the presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise by the accused.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(m), 5(l), 6, 11(iv), 12, 29, 30; Indian Penal Code - Section 366(A), 506(i) - Conviction for sexual offences against minors - The Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and fines, which were contested in appeal. (Para 2)
(B) Conviction - Standard of proof in cases involving minors - The testimonies of the child victims were corroborated by other witnesses, and despite medical evidence pointing to an attempted rape, the court found sufficient evidence to uphold convictions. (Paras 15, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for multiple sexual offences against two minors, aged 10 and 9. The incidents occurred on 30.05.2016, where the accused kidnapped and assaulted both victims; the prosecution presented testimonies from various witnesses supporting the claims. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court reaffirmed that the victims’ testimonies were credible, supported by witness corroboration, and confirmed the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of recent medical evidence of sexual intercourse did not undermine the conviction given the context and testimonies. (Paras 23-24)
Issues: Whether the victims' testimonies could substantiate the charges despite discrepancies with medical reports and the defense argument on the rushed police proceedings. (Paras 11, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court upheld that the POCSO Act provides necessary protections for child victims, asserting that credible testimonies from minors, corroborated by additional evidence, can be sufficient for conviction. The presumption of guilt under POCSO necessitates the accused to prove otherwise. (Paras 22-23)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
JUDGMENT :
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal in Spl.C.C. No.35 of 2016 dated 07.12.2018, the sole accused has preferred this appeal.
2. The learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal in Spl.C.C. No.35 of 2016, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as follows:-
| Offence under Section | Sentence |
| 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment |
| 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act | 2 Years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment |
| 5(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment |
| 366(A) IPC | 5 Years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment |
| 506(i) IPC | 1 Year rigorous imprisonment. |
The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the victims in this case are, K1 and K2 (PW2 & PW4), who were aged about 10 years and 9 years respectively, at the time of occurrence. Five days prior to 03.05.2016, at about 5.00 p.m. the accused with an intention to commit sexual intercourse with the victim K2, had committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. On 30.05.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. while K1 and K2, were playing near their house at Sathya Nagar, the accused with an intention to have sexual intercourse with K2, called K2, which is punishable under Section 11 (iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and in furtherance of the same, the accused has kidnapped the victim K1 on the same day for committing sexual intercourse on her. K1 was taken to the house of one Mahadevan, situated at Sathya Nagar, which was unoccupied and thereby the accused committed the offence under Section 366 IPC.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. No witness was examined and no document was produced on the side of the appellant herein/accused.
5. PW1, the mother of K1 had stated that on the fateful day, i.e. on 30.05.2016, when she returned home after finishing her collie work, she noticed that her daughter (K1) was missing. At that time, PW9 - Kavitha, who is the neighbour of PW1, had informed PW1 that the accused had removed the panties of the first victim and committed penetrative sex on the private part of the first victim. PW9 had further stated that the accused had committed a similar offence on K2 in the said Mahadevan’s house. She further stated that the accused had threatened both the victims that if they reveal the incident to anyone, he will murder them and their parents. However, when PW1 confronted the said fact with the first victim K1, she had stated that the accused threatened by saying that they will be done to death and thereafter, both the victims were taken to hospital through 108 Ambulance and treatment was given to both the victims.
6. Based on the complaint given by PW1, which was marked as Ex.P1, an FIR was registered under Ex.P11. Ex.P2, the birth certificate of K1, the first victim, was produced to establish that her age was 10 years at the time of occurrence. K1 had stated that the accused had committed the offence against her by tying her hands and mouth. He had also threatened her by saying that if she reveals the incident to anyone, he will kill her. K1 had further stated that same offence was committed on K2 by the accused.
7. PW3 is the grandmother of PW4/K2, who heard PW4/K2 narrating the crime committed by the accused on her. She had deposed the entire sequence of event as narrated by the second victim. PW4 is the second victim, who had stated that apart from committing the crime on the first victim, the accused has committed the same crime on her. PW5 is observation Mahazar witness. PW16 is the mother of PW4/K2. PW17 is the investigating officer,
