Advocates:
['APPELLANT NAME', '', 'LEGAL AID COUNSEL', 'K ETHIRAJALU', '', 'KANAGARAJ @ BAGAVATHIAPPAN S/O MANDHIRAPPA GOUNDER', 'SARASUMANIKADU NEAR', 'UTHIRAKALIAMMAN TEMPLE', 'SEMMANAMPATHY', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl. A. No. 598 of 202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 11.10.2022

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN

Crl. A. No. 598 of 2021

Kanagaraj

...

Appellant

Vs

State by Inspector of Police

Anaimalai Police Station,

Crime No. 113 of 2019,

Coimbatore District.

...

Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.PC, to call for

the record relating to the judgment dated 23.10.2020 made in Spl.C.C.No. 88 of

2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Special Court for POCSO cases,

Coimbatore and dismiss the sentencing and the same by allowing this Criminal

Appeal.

For Appellant

...

Mr. K. Ethirajulu

Legal Aid Counsel

For respondent

...

Mr. S. Sugendran

Additional Public Prosecutor

- - - - -

Page No:1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A. No. 598 of 202

JUDGMENT

The appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.10.2020 passed

in Spl,C.C.No. 88 of 2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge/Special

Court for POCSO Cases, Coimbatore.

2. The respondent police has registered a case against the appellant in

Crime No. 113 of 2019 for the offences under Section 9 (i) (l) (n) read with 10,

11 (i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act and also under Section 506 (i) of IPC.

After investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Special Court, Coimbatore.

Since the offence against the appellant, involved a girl child, the learned Special

Judge has taken the case in CC No. 96 of 2019 on file and after completing the

formalities, framed the charges against the appellant for the offences under

Sections 9 (i) (l) (n) read with 10, 11 (i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act and

also Section 506 (i) of IPC. In order to substantiate the case, charges were

framed against the appellant.

Page No:2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A. No. 598 of 202

3. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, totally 21 witnesses

were examined as PW1 to PW21 and 27 documents were marked as Exs. P1 to

P27. No material object was exhibited.

4. On completion of examination of prosecution witnesses, the

incriminating circumstances cult out from the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, were put to the appellant, who denied the same as false. On the side

of the appellant, no one was examined as witness, no exhibits were marked and

no material objects were produced. On completion of trial, arguments were

advanced on either side.

5. The trial court, on a perusal of the materials placed by the prosecution,

found that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 9 (i) (l) (n) read

with 10 and under section 11 (i) read with section 12 of the POCSO Act and

not guilty under Section 506 (i) of IPC. Thus, the appellant was convicted and

sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under section

9(i)(1)(n) read with section 10 of POCSO Act and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under

Section 11(i) read with 12 of POCSO Act, he was also convicted and sentenced

Page No:3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. A. No. 598 of 202

to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; however, not found

guilty for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC.

6. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed

the present appeal before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no

offence made out as alleged by the prosecution. The appellant is the father of

the victim. The de facto complainant is none other than the own daughter of the

appellant. The appellant used to ask her daughter to massage him after c