Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Accused – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | Special Case No. 7 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Sudharsan
For the Respondents: G. V. Kasthuri

Reliable and corroborated testimony of a minor victim along with medical evidence suffices for conviction despite delay in FIR or alleged tutoring of witnesses.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366A, 376, 354B, 506(ii) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 164 (statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate), Section 62 (service of summons) - Delay in FIR registration and alleged tutoring of witnesses - Effect on prosecution case - Reliance on medical evidence and victim’s testimony for conviction (Paras 2.1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20)

(B) Evidence - Child witness testimony - Requirement of caution due to possible tutoring - Conviction based on sole testimony if found reliable and trustworthy - Importance of corroboration through medical and other witnesses (Paras 4, 7, 8, 17)

Facts of the case:
The accused, a neighbor, was alleged to have forcibly taken a minor girl to his house, sexually assaulted her, and threatened her not to disclose the incident. The victim's mother observed signs of injury and lodged a complaint. Medical examinations and police investigation ensued, leading to charges under various IPC sections and POCSO Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. The accused appealed against conviction and sentence.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the prosecution evidence, including the victim’s testimony, medical reports, and corroborative witnesses reliable. Delay in FIR registration and alleged tutoring were held insufficient to vitiate the prosecution case. The defense’s claim of previous enmity was rejected. The trial court's conviction and sentence were confirmed (Paras 11, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21).

Issues: Whether the trial court’s judgment convicting the accused under relevant IPC sections and POCSO Act is to be set aside on grounds of delayed FIR, tutoring of witnesses, and insufficiency of evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that unexplained delay in FIR and presence of police officials during witness statements do not automatically discredit prosecution evidence. The victim's testimony, when consistent, reliable, and supported by medical evidence and corroborative witnesses, suffices for conviction. Trial courts’ findings based on demeanor and evidence deserve respect unless perverse (Paras 6, 7, 8, 16, 20).

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the accused confirmed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. defence arguments on delay, tutoring, and case vitiation (Para 5 , 6)
3. prosecution arguments supporting credibility and corroboration (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court’s procedural analysis on witness statements and summons (Para 10 , 13)
5. court’s observations on procedural safeguards in recording statements (Para 14 , 15)
6. court’s reasoning on trial court’s appreciation of evidence (Para 20)
7. ratio decidendi: affirmation of guilt and appellate deference to trial court (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2015 passed in Special Case No. 7 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-

2.1. P.W-1 is the Complainant in this case. As per the complaint under Ex.P-1, the daughter of P.W-1 the victim P.W-2 was studying in R.C School, Maduranthagam at the relevant point of time. On 18.11.2013, the Accused in this case is alleged to have come to the shop of the Complainant to purchase tooth paste. He is a neighbour also. He was having tooth brush in his hand. The Complainant P.W-1 observed that the Accused is showing some symbols and through his eyes, he is expressing something to the daughter of the Complainant. At that time, the Complainant P.W-1 was combing the hair of her daughter P.W-2. The mother of P.W-2 was in the shop which is in front of the house. Sensing something P.W-1 asked her daughter P.W-2 that what was it he was showing by gestures. For which, P.W-2 daughter of P.W-1 told her that the Accused referring him to as Anna is a bad guy he should not be allowed in the residence. P.W-1 got suspicious and on further enquiry with her daughter P.W-2, the daughter explained that he had taken her to his house on 18.11.2013, on which date she was on leave due to illness and she was alone at home. She went out of the house to attend nature's call. After attending nature's call, when she was returning to her house, the Accused who is a neighbour, three house away from the residence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 took P.W-2 to his house and bolted the doors from inside, made her lie on the Sofa and after lifting her dress, he removed his dress and thrusted his male organ into the female organ of P.W-2. Unable to bear the pain, she cried stating that she will report the matter to her mother. To this, the Accused threatened the victim P.W-2 that if she ever inform any one he will kill her. Next day on 19.11.2013 only he had come to the shop of P.W-1 where P.W-1's mother was in the shop. P.W-1 was combing the hair of P.W-2 and Accused having come to the shop to purchase tooth paste shown some gestures to P.W-2. When P.W-2 inform about the occurrence P.W-1 took her daughter P.W-2 inside the house and on removing her clothes observed that her genital was swollen. P.W-1 informed her mother and P.W-1 took her daughter P.W-2 to Government Hospital, Maduranthagam accompanied by the mother of P.W-1 and sister in law of P.W-1. The daughter at Maduranthagam Government Hospital P.W-11 observed that her vagina was swollen indicating attempted sexual assault. Based on the Doctors information P.W-1 lodged a complaint with Maduranthagam Police Station. The Officers at Maduranthagam Police Station directed P.W-1 to lodge a complaint with All Women Police Station, Maduranthagam. Therefore, she approached the All Women Police Station, Maduranthagam and lodged a complaint under Ex.P-1. P.W-12 Mrs.Geetha Lakshmi, Inspector of Police, Maduranthagam All Women Police Station received the complaint under Ex.P-1 and registered a case in FIR in Crime No.9 of 2013 on 20.11.2013 under Ex.P13 for the offences under Sections 376, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. She had recorded the statement of P.W-1 C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS,Accused – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCriminal Appeal | Special Case No. 7 of 2014

Reliable and corroborated testimony of a minor victim along with medical evidence suffices for conviction despite delay in FIR or alleged tutoring of witnesses.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Accused – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | Special Case No. 7 of 2014