Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ARUL MURUGAN
Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and victim's age. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 19) |
| 2. charges filed and trial process. (Para 8 , 9 , 17) |
| 3. defense arguments regarding consent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. prosecution's stance on victim's testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 22 , 30) |
| 5. legal standards on testimony and conviction. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
1. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2021 in S.C.No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Sessions (Fast Track Mahila), Namakkal.
2. The appellant/1st accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under:
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim (P.W.2) is a minor, who had discontinued 10th standard. Victim’s father (P.W.1) belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the victim worked in a hospital viz., Santha Devi Nursing Home at Velur. In the year 2014, when the victim (P.W.2) came to the hospital to attend duty, the appellant/1st accused, who belong to Vanniyar community, use to follow the victim. The 1st accused is an auto driver in Velur Town. The 1st accused, in some time, developed love affair with the victim and around Apri
Consent is irrelevant in POCSO cases when the victim is a minor, and retrospective imposition of harsher penalties is unconstitutional under Article 20(1).
The conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld due to overwhelming medical and DNA evidence, despite the victim's hostile testimony.
The conviction for sexual offences against minors can rely on circumstantial evidence and victim testimony, reinforced by medical reports, even amidst witness hostility.
Conviction of the appellant for attempted aggravated penetrative sexual assault upheld based on consistent testimony of the minor victim, despite charge framing errors; sentence reduced to ten years'....
The denial of cross-examination rights in a trial under the POCSO Act infringes on the accused's right to a fair trial, necessitating remand for proper procedural adherence.
Conviction for sexual assault can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if deemed credible, despite minor discrepancies in their statements.
Statutorial presumption u/s 29 and 30 of POCSO Act certainly places a persuasive burden on appellant to show that he does not possess requisite culpable mental state for offence for which he is prose....
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
