Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN
Karuna @ Karunagaran – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and Sections 6 r/w 5(m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [in short,'the POCSO Act'], vide judgment dated 18.07.2018 in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Vellore.
2(i) The gist of the allegation against the accused is that the accused and the victim girl aged about eight years, at the time of occurrence, were neighbours; that on 15.03.2015, at about 11.00 a.m., when the victim child was playing with her sisters and grandparents, the accused who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, with an intention to commit rape on the victim girl, gagged her mouth, forcibly abducted her from the place, kept her in wrongful confinement and committed penetrative sexual assault and thus, the accused committed the offences under Sections 365 , 368 r/w 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
(ii) On the complaint given by the victim, who was examined as PW1 before the trial Court, an FIR [Ex.P1
The court held that while the victim's testimony suggested sexual assault, inconsistencies regarding penetration necessitated a reduction in conviction to lesser charges under the POCSO Act.
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.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on a single, inconsistent witness is insufficient for conviction in serious offenses.
Prosecution failed to prove victim's age and that the assaults were not consensual, leading to the overturning of the conviction.
Conviction under POCSO Act requires credible evidence; inconsistencies and potential tutoring in the victim's testimony can render a conviction unsafe.
The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of res gestae evidence were central to the court's decision.
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases, modifying the conviction from penetrative sexual assault to aggravated sexual assault due to insufficient evidenc....
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
