The conviction of the appellant was upheld based on reliable victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence, affirming the gravity of offenses under the POCSO Act and IPC.

ORDER

P.Velmurugan, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2016 dated 17.12.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim who was aged about 15 years was residing at Erasakkanayakanur, Theni District, along with her mother and studying 9^th std. The father of the victim was working in a Baniyan Company in Tiruppur. During school vacation, the victim came to Tiruppur to visit her father and was staying with her father. During that period, the victim fell in love with the one Mukesh, who is the neighbour of his father. On 24.05.2016, Mukesh took the victim in his bike to a thorny bushes near Radhanagar and was speaking with her. At that time, one Pandi, Balaji and Arun/appellant herein came there in a drunken mood and on seeing the victim and Mukesh, they snatched the shawl of the victim and tied a stone in the shawl and assaulted Mukesh with the same. At that time, one of the juvenile accused Pandi @ Pandian snatched the cell phone from Mukesh. The other juvenile accused Bala @ Balaji took the key from Mukesh's pocket and took his motor cycle. The appellant snatched the bracelet of Mukesh. In continuation of the said occurrence, the appellant along with the juvenile accused Pandi and Bala tied the victim's mouth with the shawl, took her near the thorny bushes and repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim one after another. Subsequently the victim became unconscious. Later, when she regained conscious, the accused Pandi was sitting nearby and her dress was lying near her. She took and wore her dress. When she asked the accused Pandi to take her to his house, at first he refused the same. At that time, a lady was going by that side. The victim asked her to take her to her house. At that time, the accused Pandi told the victim that he would take her to her house. Thereafter, while they were proceeding by walk towards the house of the victim, the accused Pandi threatened the victim that he would kill the victim if she discloses the incidence to anyone. When she reached her home, she informed about the incidence to her mother and father. Thereafter, she went to the police station along with her parents and lodged the complaint.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2016 against the appellant and two others initially for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 352, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 5(g), 6, 9(g) and 10 of POCSO Act and after recording statements from some of the witnesses, altered the Section of offences from Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 352, 506(2) of and Sections 5(g), 6, 9(g) and 10 of POCSO Act into Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 352, 506(2) and 394 of and Sections 5(g), 6, 9(g) and 10 of POCSO Act and subsequently altered to Sections 394 read with 397, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and Sections 5(g) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act . The respondent police, after completion of investigation, found that two of the accused namely Pandi @ Pandiyan and Bala @ Balaji are juveniles and therefore, they referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board insofar as the juvenile accused are concerned and filed the charge sheet only against the accused Arunkumar/appellant herein for the offences