Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.POORNIMA, J
accused/sole appellant – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal S.C.No.11 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor
Victim’s credible testimony corroborated by medical and DNA evidence suffices to uphold conviction in sexual assault cases despite minor procedural delays or witness contradictions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 342, 454, 506(i), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 164 - Conviction for rape and sexual assault of minor girl - Medical evidence and DNA corroboration - Delay in FIR transmission not fatal - Victim's statement consistent and credible - (Paras 2, 12, 14, 23, 27)
(B) Appeal scope - Appellate court to examine whether trial court judgment is perverse or unsupported by evidence - Contradictions in prosecution witnesses scrutinized but not sufficient for acquittal - DNA report corroborated with victim's evidence - (Paras 6, 15, 18-20)
(C) Evidence credibility - Age of fetus computed by gestational age considering last menstrual period, validating medical evidence despite alleged discrepancies - (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The accused was alleged to have forcibly entered the house of a minor victim girl on two occasions, committing penetrative sexual assault. The victim became pregnant, confirmed through medical and DNA evidence. The prosecution presented witness testimony including the victim, her mother, neighbors, investigators, and medical doctors. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the trial court’s conviction, finding the evidence credible beyond reasonable doubt, accepting the victim’s statement, corroborated by medical and forensic reports including the DNA test. The delay in transmitting the FIR was held not fatal. The appellant’s contentions on contradictory evidence and procedural lapses were rejected.
Issues: Whether the prosecution conclusively proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including credibility of victim’s testimony, medical and DNA evidence, and impact of procedural delays on prosecution’s case?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence in sexual assault cases involving minors. Gestational age is calculated from last menstrual period, explaining any apparent discrepancies in fetus age and date of assault. Minor procedural delays do not vitiate strong evidentiary proofs. Credibility contradictions insufficient to overturn conclusive evidence. (Paras 19-23, 27)
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of prosecution case and witness testimonies (Para 2 , 10) |
| 2. defence arguments challenging evidence credibility (Para 6) |
| 3. court’s analysis of medical and forensic evidence corroborating victim testimony (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. assessment of procedural delay impact and final conclusion on appeal (Para 21 , 22 , 27) |
| 5. psychological and physical impact of sexual assault on victim (Para 25) |
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the accused/sole appellant in the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, in S.C.No.11 of 2022 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 342, 506(i) IPC and 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- in default to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment under Section 454 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo six month rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(i) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w.6(i) of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :
(a) The complainant is the mother of the victim girl XX. She was studying 10th standard. She had not attended her menstrual cycle and when the same was questioned, she did not answer properly. Thereafter, on 09.11.2021 she informed her that due to rain, the school was on leave. She had been at home and on that morning, at about 11.00 a.m., when she was alone in her house, the accused trespassed into the house illegally. After which he locked the door and had wrongfully confined the victim child. He then pushed her onto the cot, lifted her nightie, removed her underwear and closed her mouth. Followed by which he removed his dress and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child, and had taken the panties of the victim child XX along with him. Again on 17.11.2021 at about 11.30 a.m. when the victim child XX was alone, the accused had entered the house illegally, forced the victim child XX and again committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Further he threatened her that if she revealed the same, he would put her to shame by telling that she had only committed the wrong and in spite of that if she reveal the same to anyone, he would kill her. Therefore, the victim girl did not reveal the same to anyone. The victim girl XX narrated the entire story while weeping. Due to fear, the complainant informed to one Banupriya, who is a Nurse, she revealed that her daughter had become pregnant. She had gone to the house of the accused, but he was not available. Hence, the complaint.
(b)Afte receipt of the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.9 Tmt.Yuvarani, Sub Inspector of Police, registered FIR Ex.P9 in Crime No.573/2021 for the offence under Sections 506(ii) IPC and 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Act. She had sent the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ilupur and the copies to the Inspector of Police and other officials for necessary action.
(c) P.W.10 Tmt.Padma, Inspector of Police, had taken up the case for investigation. On the same day at about 9.30 hours she had gone to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P3 and rough sketch Ex.P.10 in the presence of witnesses Raja and Krishnan.
(d) She examined the victim child XX, witnesses Banupriya, Raja, Krishnan, and recorded their statements.
(e) Based on the statement of victim child XX, she altered the section of law from Sections 506(ii) IPC and 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Act to Sections 342, 450, 506(ii) IPC and 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Act i
