Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA
Ajithkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Through By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2020, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, dated 12.11.2021, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposing a fine of Rs.35,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2.The case of the prosecution was that the victim child was aged about 10 years, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant/ P.W.1. On 02.02.2020 morning at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.1's brother Manikandan was working in the fields and at that time, her elder daughter, who is the victim child aged about 10 years, younger daughter and her sister's daughter had gone to the fields to give to him water and the field was close to the house P.W.1at a walkable distance. While they were returning home, they had gone for
The requirement for proving penetration in cases under the POCSO Act is critical, and lack of substantial medical evidence necessitates modification of charges.
Conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was overturned due to lack of penetrative evidence; modified conviction for sexual assault under relevant sections of the POCSO Act was upheld.
Failure to disprove the accusations leads to conviction under the POCSO Act despite absence of physical evidence.
(1) Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to children should be viewed very seriously.(2) Child needs extra protection – No leniency can be shown to an accused who has committed offences und....
The court held that insufficient evidence for penetrative assault warrants acquittal under specific POCSO sections, yet convicted the appellant for lesser sexual assault under Section 9(n).
The conviction under POCSO Act was upheld due to substantive corroborative evidence despite minor delays in complaint filing.
The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.
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
