The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, especially when the victim's testimony is the sole basis for conviction.

ORDER :

N.Seshasayee, J.

1.1 These revisions are preferred by the accused/revision petitioner challenging the judgments in C.A.No.168 of 2017 and C.A.No.231 of 2017, both dated 07.09.2018 on the file of XVII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. The appeals before the Sessions Court arose out of the judgment in C.C.No.1873 of 2012 dated 22.06.2017, by which the trial Court had convicted the revision petitioner herein, for offences which are alleged to involve sexual assault by the father on his 14 year old daughter.

1.2 Indeed, the revision petitioner faced trial for charges under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec.354 IPC, and one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec.4 of TNPWH Act along with fine. Challenging this judgment, the revision petitioner approached the Sessions Court with C.A.No.168 of 2017, whereas the defacto complainant (P.W.1), the mother of the victim, had preferred C.A.No.231 of 2017 for enhancement of sentence.

1.3 The appellate Court dismissed C.A.No.168/2017 (preferred by the revision petitioner) and confirmed the judgment convicting the revision petitioner. And it allowed C.A.No.231 of 2017 (preferred by the defacto complainant) and enhanced the sentence from six months R.I to two years R.I. for offence under Section 354 IPC, and one year R.I. to three years R.I. for offence under Section 4 of TNPHW Act. Hence, these two revisions. For narrative convenience, the petitioner would be referred to as accused.

2.1 The case of the prosecution begins with the introduction of few characters, all of whom are relations as between them. P.W.1 is the wife of the accused.P.W.2 is their only daughter, who was the victim of the crime attributed to the accused. She was 14 years at the relevant time. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1 (brother-in-law of the accused) and P.W.4 and P.W.10 are parents of P.W.1. Besides P.W.2, the couple had a son, who at the relevant time when the crime was alleged to have taken place was about 16 years old. He was not examined.

2.2 While so, on 13.06.2012, P.W.1 preferred Ext.P1 complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar Range, and this came to be forwarded to the respondent police where P.W.11, the Inspector of Police registered Ext.P2 FIR. The allegations in the FIR are:

a) That P.W.1 along with the accused and her two children which included P.W.2, were living in a two-bedroom apartment at Sowcarpet, Chennai. While the family of the accused (which includes him, his wife P.W.1, his daughter P.W.2 and his son) occupied one of the two bedrooms, the other room was occupied by the accused's brother and his wife. Along with them lived the parents of the accused (parents-in-law of P.W.1) who also used to sleep in the hall.

b) Ordinarily, in the night, both the children of the accused and P.W.1 would sleep in the bedroom along with their mother (P.W.1) . So far as the accused is concerned, he had the habit of sleeping very late in the night, even well beyond midnight, till about 2 a.m, as he was addicted to watching television for long hours during nights.

c) When the accused came to sleep in his bedroom, he would require both his children to go to the hall and sleep.

d) Of late (no specific date or time was given), when the accused came to the bedroom for sleeping, he used to send only his son to sleep in the hall but not the daughter. And the accused would lie down next to his daughter, and like an animal he would feel her private parts while she was asleep. Because she was asleep she did not realise what was happening to her. P.W.1 would be fast asleep then.

e) About six months prior to Ext.P1 complaint, when the accused andP.W.2 w