The conviction for aggravated sexual assault was upheld based on corroborative witness testimony and prosecution evidence, despite minor discrepancies and delay in complaint lodging deemed immaterial.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of case under POCSO Act, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, in S.C.No.84 of 2022 dated 20.04.2023, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.05.2022 at around 09:00 p.m., the victim girl and her mother had gone to the Church that they usually go to. The appellant is a pastor and he runs the Church. The victim’s mother left her at the church under the appellant’s care and had gone out to meet someone. When she returned, the appellant had panicked and ran away after seeing her and the victim was found in a pathetic condition with her shirt unbuttoned and pants rolled up. The next day when the victim’s mother inquired about the situation, the victim informed her that the appellant had sucked her breasts and had subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It was submitted by the prosecution that the victim girl was 70% disabled, has moderate intellectual disability and is speech impaired. Therefore, the appellant had taken advantage of the victim girl’s disability and had subjected her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

3.The victim’s mother had later confronted about the incident to the appellant and he and his family had apologized and begged to not disclose it to anybody and later that night, the victim and her mother had informed about the incident to her father. Later, on 09.05.2022, they had informed the same to one Esther, who had further inquired the victim girl about the alleged incident. With a lot of hesitation, they had also gathered a group of people and had gone to the appellant to confront him, but in front of them he denied committing the alleged offence.

4.Aggrieved by the same, the victim’s mother went to the police station and lodged a complaint on 11.05.2022. A final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court on 15.07.2022.

5.To bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.9 and produced 15 documents which were marked as Exs. P1 to P15. The appellant had examined 2 witnesses i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents were marked. No material object was marked by either side.

6.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 5 (f) and 5(k) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with Section 92 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this present appeal.

ARGUMENTS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT:

7.The learned counsel appearing for appellant advanced his arguments by raising various grounds:

7.1.It was contented that though the church was a common place and despite the presence of other people at that time, the prosecution failed to examine any independent eye witness to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. D.W.2 was the person that the victim’s mother had gone to meet. It was stated that D.W.2 turned hostile, however his evidence, though crucial, was disregarded by the Trial Court.

7.2.Further, it was stated that, the