The court reaffirmed that convictions must be based on credible evidence, including proper evaluation of minor witnesses’ testimonies, noting the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2018, dated 30.11.2020, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram District, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376(AB), 5(i) r/w 6, 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor girl, aged about 4 years. On 26.08.2018 at about 04.00 p.m., while the victim girl was playing near Government Pre-school, where her mother is working, she was taken by the accused to a place near the Kaliamman temple and had committed penetrative sexual assault on her.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.5 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 5 (m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed alteration report altering the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376-AB of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(i) & 6 r/w 5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 and filed a final report. On receipt of the same, the trial Court had taken cognizance and framed the charges as against the accused for the offences punishable under , 376-AB of and Section 6 r/w 5(i) and 6 r/w 5(m) of POCSO Act.

4. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 and M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 , 376(AB) of IPC and Section 5 (i) r/w6 and 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the accused and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 376 (A) of . He was further sentenced to undergo ten year Rigorous Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 366 of . He was also sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment for the offences punishable under Sections 5 (i) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove any of the charges framed against the appellant. The accused had lodged a complaint against the father of the victim child for illegal sand quarrying. Due to this, there was previous enmity between the accused’s family and the victim child’s family, and hence, a false complaint has been foisted against the accused. All the allegations are false in nature, and the child did not mention any incident of penetrative sexual assault. Further, before recording the statement of the victim child under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate failed to ascertain whether the child is capable of deposing before this Court with a full understanding of the questions. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Agniraj and others vs. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police , CB-CID reported in CDJ 2025SC 952. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

“25. Now, we come to the evidence of PW-9 (Nikila). The law is well settled that b