Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Muthupandi – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai All Women Police Station – Respondent
Crl. A(MD)No.209 of 2023
Decided On : 24-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case and trial proceedings under pocso. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. appellant's defence of prior dispute. (Para 12 , 13 , 21) |
| 3. victim evidence establishes foundational facts triggering presumptions. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. child victim testimony reliable; no corroboration needed. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; trial judgment affirmed. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The sole accused has assailed the judgment passed in Special S.C.No. 39 of 2021, dated 01.11.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukottai, wherein the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 6(1) of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act” for brevity) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
The further case of the prosecution is that on 28.09.2021, PW1 had tooth pain and and she along with her sister and her sister’s husband had gone to the hospital. When she came back, she came to know that the victim girl was not found. When they were searching, she was found near a well. When she was inquired, she had stated that the accused person had called her over phone and asked her to come to a poultry farm near R.S.Pathi groove. The victim girl also went to that place since the accused person threatened her that he will die if she does not come. On further inquiry, it came to light that the accused person had committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim.3. PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) on 29.09.2021 to PW7, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police and based on the same, an FIR (Ex.P9) came to be registered in Crime No.17 of 2021 for offence under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. The investigation was taken up by PW8 and the police officer went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P7) and the rough sketch (Ex.P10). The statements of the witnesses, including that of PW1 and PW2, were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The accused person was arrested on the same day at about 18:30 hours and he was produced before the concerned Court and was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.
5. The victim girl was sent for medical examination to PW6, who on examination of the victim girl recorded the findings in the Accident Register (Ex.P8) as follows:
“O/E.Patient conscious, oriented, afrebrile. No pallor
No pedal edema. BP;110/70mmHg, PR:78/min
SPO2 – 99%
CVS-S1S2(+) RS-NVBS(+)
LMP:24/9/21
Abd: Soft, not tender, no mass palpable
Breast-Soft, no external injuries
L/E: Perineum- No external or internal injuries
P/V.Introitus admits 2 fingers
Hymen not intact
UPT – Negative”
6. PW8 took steps to record the statements of the victim girl and her mother under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the statements were recorded (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4).
7. The accused person was produced for medical examination before PW3/Doctor and the certificate was obtained (Ex.P5).
8. The investigation was later taken over by PW9, who on collecting the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on collecting all the other materials, laid the final report before the concerned Special Court, which was taken cognizance in Special S.C. No. 39 of 2021.
9. The Special Court framed charges against the accused person for offence under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act and when questioned, the accused person denied the charges.
10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exhibits P1 to P11. The accused examined DW1, however no exhibits were marked on the side of the accused.
11. The trial court, on considering t
POCSO presumptions under Sections 29-30 apply once foundational facts proven; prior disputes do not rebut child victim's credible testimony.
Reliable victim testimony in POCSO cases suffices for conviction without mandatory corroboration; life imprisonment upheld for repeated aggravated assault by father on minor daughter, supported by me....
In sexual assault cases, victim's credible testimony can suffice for conviction absent corroborative evidence, particularly under the POCSO Act where legal presumptions apply strongly against the acc....
The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act, overriding the need for further corroboration unless ....
The legal threshold for conviction under POCSO necessitates clear evidence which the prosecution failed to meet for certain charges, allowing modification of the conviction and sentence.
The conviction under the POCSO Act was overturned due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws in the prosecution's case.
The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and requires the prosecution to establish foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumptio....
In POCSO cases, the victim's testimony is primary and sufficient for conviction if found credible, and procedural discrepancies in DNA samples do not invalidate the findings if the investigation rema....
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
