The court emphasized that for abetment of suicide, clear mens rea must be established, and DNA evidence is critical in confirming paternity and culpability under the POCSO Act.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

The defacto complainant in Special S.C No.14 of 2018 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court/Sessions Court, Theni filed this appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 20.05.2019. The second respondent herein, Saravanan was charged with offences under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 305 of . By the impugned judgment, he was acquitted of both the charges.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

The appellant is the wife of one Lakshmanan. Three children (Two sons and a daughter) were born through the marriage. “N”, the daughter of the appellant was studying in 9^th standard in the local government school. She was born on 04.07.2003. She committed self immolation on 27.07.2017 in her house at around 05.00 P.M. She was rushed to Government Hospital, K.Vilakku. Intimation was given to the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti for taking the victim's dying declaration. Dying declaration was taken at around 08.45 P.M on 27.07.2017. On the next day, at around 08.00 A.M, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by the appellant stating that the accused Saravanan had illicit intimacy since three months prior to the occurrence and impregnated her daughter. This was discovered when the victim's menstrual cycle got postponed. After the mother found out the same, the victim is said to have confronted the accused. The accused bluntly told the victim that he would not marry her. Unable to bear the stand taken by the accused, the victim poured kerosene on herself and committed self-immolation. Based on this complaint, Crime No.414 of 2017 was registered. PW.15, Tmt.Parameshwari was then working as Inspector of Police. She went to the occurrence spot and prepared observation mahazar and Ex.P11 rough sketch. She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Upon receiving information that the victim died on 31.07.2017, she altered the offences by incorporating Section 5(1)(j)(ii) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 305 of . Ex.P12 is the alteration report. Inquest was conducted. Ex.P13 is the inquest report. Postmortem was also conducted. The foetus which was three months old had ejected from the victim's body and it was sent to the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai-4 for DNA analysis. The accused was arrested on 03.08.2017 and he was subjected to medical examination. Blood sample was taken from him for DNA analysis. After examining the medical witnesses and after obtaining DNA report which confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the male foetus, final report was filed on 21.12.2017. It was taken on file in Special S.C No.14 of 2018 and charges were framed against the accused for the offences under sections 6 of and of . The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.15 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC and he denied them as false. On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 20.05.2019 acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

3.It is only the de facto complainant who has filed the appeal and the State did not choose to challenge the judgment of acquittal. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly supported the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant. They submitted that the DNA report is a clinching piece of evidence and that the court below disregarded the same by citing frivolous reasons. They called upon this Court to reverse the impugned judgment and find the accused guilty of the offences