Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN
Banudurai – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and charges against the appellant (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding credibility of witnesses and evidence (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. witness examination and evidence evaluation (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. issues with delay in lodging the complaint (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. contradictions present in the victim's testimony (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. acquittal of the appellant (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2023 in Spl.SC.No.82 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Tiruvannamalai, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC, Section 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 451 of & Section 10 r/w 9(l) of and Section 506 (i) of the and sentenced as follows :
2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was the landlord of the premises in which the victim aged about 13 years and her mother were staying as tenants; that on 12.06.2020 at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim was playing on the terrace, the appellant had committed sexual assault by inappropriately touching the breast and the hip of the victim, and thus, c
In sexual offence cases, the sole testimony of a victim must be corroborated; delays and inconsistencies can create reasonable doubt leading to acquittal.
The court held that a conviction under sexual assault charges must rest on credible evidence, finding the testimonies in this case to be influenced by personal motives and thus unreliable.
Conviction under Section 10 of POCSO Act modified to Section 18 due to insufficient evidence, with an additional fine imposed as compensation for the victim.
The court affirmed that the prosecution established the minor's sexual assault under POCSO, requiring the accused to disprove presumption of guilt, which he failed to do, thus affirming the convictio....
Delay in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution's credibility, potentially leading to the collapse of the case if deemed fabricated.
The prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, coupled with significant delays and contradictions, leads to acquittal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
