Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Henrilouise – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi All Women Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for sexual assault detailed (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the prosecution's case (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. prosecution evidence and its support (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. challenges to complaint veracity (Para 12 , 13 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. prosecution failed to meet burden of proof (Para 28) |
| 6. judgment of acquittal pronounced (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 dated 16.08.2023, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Full Additional Charge), Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 (in short hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act, 2019”) and Section 506 (PART I) of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the father of the victim child, who is aged about 14 years. The accused was married to the complainant and they had a female child born on 15.05.2007 and another female child and male child. When the complainant used to visit her mother at Aranthangi, the victim girl was left alone at home. During this time, the accused, w
The prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, coupled with significant delays and contradictions, leads to acquittal.
Conviction in sexual assault cases requires corroborative evidence alongside victim testimony; inconsistent accounts can undermine credibility, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny over procedural....
Delay in lodging a sexual offence complaint is not detrimental if sufficiently explained; the victim's credible testimony is pivotal in affirming conviction.
The conviction under POCSO Act was upheld due to substantive corroborative evidence despite minor delays in complaint filing.
The court clarified the distinction between sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need for evidence of penetration to establish the latter.
Failure to disprove the accusations leads to conviction under the POCSO Act despite absence of physical evidence.
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
