The prosecution failed to prove charges of sexual offences against a minor beyond reasonable doubt, and the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint was deemed fatal to the case.

COMMON JUDGMENT in Crl.A.Nos.966 of 2024 & 731 of 2025 & ORDER in Crl.MP.No.13117 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.966 of 2024

The criminal appeals in Crl.A.Nos.966 of 2024 and Crl.A.No.731 of 2025 have been preferred against the judgment passed in Special SC.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act , Chennai, thereby acquitted the first respondent in Crl.A.966 of 2024 from the charges under Sections 10 & 12 of .

A) CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first respondent is the paternal uncle of the minor victim girl. The mother of the victim girl and the wife of the first respondent are sisters. The first respondent and the father of the victim are cousin brothers. Both the family members are living in the same compound in adjacent houses. The children in both the families used to regularly move between the houses. While the victim was studying fourth grade at her age of eight years, the first respondent took her to his portion and he made her to sit on his lap and showed her porn videos and photos for two years from 10.07.2019 to the year 2021. At that time, he used to put his finger on her waist, chest and private part. On 25.04.2021, while the first respondent was showing porn photos and videos to her, she refused to see the photos. So he hugged her tightly and also attempted to touch her private part. Thereafter, the victim child pushed him with her leg and ran to her house. It was informed to her mother on the same day. For the said occurrence, the mother of the victim girl lodged complaint on 15.10.2021. On the complaint, the second respondent registered FIR in crime No.6 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 9(m), 10, 11 (iii), 12 of POCSO Act and Section 67B of Information Technology Act . After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.

B) ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT:

3. Before the trial court, in order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The prosecution had produced material objects i.e. MO.1 to MO.3. On the side of the first respondent, no one was examined and no documents were marked to disprove the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the first respondent not guilty for any charge and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.966 of 2024 has been filed by the defacto complainant. The second respondent also filed belated appeal with condone delay petition as against the order of acquittal passed in Spl.SC.No.2 of 2022. While pending the appeal filed by the defacto complainant in Crl.A.No.966 of 2024, she filed application in Crl.MP.No.13117 of 2024 seeking permission to adduce additional documentary evidences such as e-mails and WhatsApp messages sent by the first respondent to his wife, e-mails sent by the first respondent to the parents of the victim, thereby admitting the offence committed by him.

4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.966 of 2025 urged this Court to pass a separate order in Crl.MP.No.13117 of 2024 by citing several judgments, this Court is inclined to pass common order in Crl.MP.No.13117 of 2024, Crl.A.No.966 of 2024, and Crl.A.No.731 of 2025.

C) SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT'S COUNSEL:

5. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.966 of 2024 submitted that the victim girl was aged about 8 years. The first respondent is a close relative of the victim girl in both ways i.e. mother side as well as father side. The first respondent who has father f