The court held that the testimony of a victim must be consistent and reliable to support a conviction; the inconsistency in the victim's statements led to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/accused challenging the Judgment dated 28.02.2022 in Spl.C.C.No.104 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, “POCSO Act”) & Section 366(A) of IPC and sentenced as follows:

3. According to the prosecution, P.W.3 /victim girl is a minor studying 12^th Standard in NGNG Higher Secondary School, Reddiarur. P.W.3 is the friend of one Sowmiya (sister of accused). P.W.3 used to visit the house of her friend Sowmiya. While so, P.W.3 developed love affair with Sowmiya’s brother/ accused. When P.W.3 was in love with accused, on 05.06.2019, accused had called P.W.3 to come to his grandmother’s house. P.W.3 had gone to the Appellant’s grandmother’s house, where the accused enticed P.W.3 that they could marry. At that time, Appellant’s grandmother was not present in the house and thus, exploiting the situation, accused had sexual relationship with P.W.3. After the said incident, P.W.3 returned to the house as if returning from the school. Again, after some time, on 18.06.2019, accused had threatened P.W.3 and kidnapped her to Palani, where, he married the victim.

4. On 18.06.209, P.W.1/ father of the victim girl, received a call from the school where her daughter was studying, informing that her daughter has not reported to school. P.W.1 went in search of her daughter to all the known places. Since the whereabouts of P.W.3 were not known and she was not able to be located, P.W.1 lodged a Complaint /Ex.P1 to the Respondent Police. On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.11 /Sub Inspector of Police registered the FIR /Ex.P13. Thereafter on receipt of information from Valparai about the presence of accused and P.W.3, the Respondent Police went to Valparai and brought the accused and P.W.3 to the Police Station for enquiry. P.W.10 /Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of P.W.3 /victim girl. P.W.8 /Police Constable took P.W.3 to P.W.4 /Doctor for medical examination. P.W.4 who examined the victim girl issued Ex.P7 /Medical Test Report and Ex.P8 /Final Opinion. P.W.9 (Head Constable) had taken the accused for medical examination before P.W.7 /Doctor who examined the accused and issued Ex.P11 /Potentiality Certificate. P.W.12 /Inspector of Police took up the investigation, prepared the Observation Mahazar /Ex.P9 and Rough Sketch /Ex.P14. P.W.3 was taken to the Magistrate, where, she gave statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C in Ex.P16. Upon completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the Final Report before the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court took up the case, issued summons and on appearance of accused, complied with Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the charges against accused for offences under Section 3(a), 4 of POCSO Act, Section 366(A) of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the charges, has examined 13 witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked 18 exhibits viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On completion of prosecution side evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C about the incriminating materials, he denied the same. The accused disputed the charges and to dislodge the presumption, examined 3 witnesses viz., D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked two exhibits viz., Ex.D1 & Ex.D2.

7. After trial, on hearing the arguments and analysing the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court had concluded that the accused is guilty of the charges and convi