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 conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.04.2021 made in Spl.S.C.No.47 of 2019 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2. The appellant, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as detailed below:-

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim/PW1 was brought up by her grandparents. Due to family dispute, PW1's mother committed suicide and PW1's father had left the family by conducting second marriage and therefore the victim and her brother were taken care of by her maternal grandparents. The victim was aged 15 years and was staying in a hostel and studying 9^th standard. Due to vacation, she had come to her grandparent’s house. On 25.09.2019, PW1 along with her grandmother/PW2 had gone for work, who earned her livelihood by doing daily wages. After returning from work, the victim got money from her grandmother and went to the adjacent shop to buy biscuits. On her return from the shop, the accused who was a Tractor driver, had stopped the victim and enquired her. When the victim answered the accused, all of a sudden the accused had pulled and dragged the victim into a bathroom in the Tractor shed and had committed sexual assault.

4. PW1 had somehow managed to wriggle out and escaped from the clutches of the accused and came home crying. In the meantime, as there was some delay in the grandchild returning home, PW2 also came in search of her and found that the victim was coming home crying. On being enquired, the victim narrated the occurrence of the sexual assault committed by the accused. Immediately, PW2 along with the victim, had gone to the Tractor shed and had enquired with the accused as to why he had misbehaved and committed such an act on the helpless orphan child, that too particularly when they belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, whereas the accused belonged to Backward Community. The accused threatened PW2 for her life, if she or her granddaughter informed anyone about the alleged incident.

5. PW2 on returning home with the victim informed her husband and both the aged persons, i.e., victim's grandmother and grandfather, had informed the incident to the village elderly people and after ascertaining their views, they took some time, but on the same day night, PW2 had gone to the Police Station and had lodged the complaint/Ex.P2. PW9 received the complaint and registered FIR/Ex.P9. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) conducted investigation and filed the final report. Since the DSP had died pending trial, the Inspector of Police who had assisted the DSP had been examined as PW10.

6. The trial court took up the case, issued summons to the accused and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the trial court framed charges under Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, Section 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

7. The prosecution to prove the charges examined PW1 to PW10 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials available, he denied the same. However, the accused has neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. The tria