Advocates:
['APPELLANT NAME', '', 'LEGAL AID COUNSEL', 'M/S S SRIDEVI', '', 'MANI @ MANIKANDAN S/O THANGARAJ', 'NO', 'PONNUSAMY ST', 'MARIAMMAN KOIL ST', 'SEELANAICKENPATTI', 'SALEM NOW HE IS CONFINED AT CENTRAL PRISON', 'SALEM', 'SALEM DISTRICT', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

CRL A No.535 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.10.2022

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Criminal Appeal No.535 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P.no.11548 of 2021

Mani @ Manikandan

... Appellant

Vs.

The State rep. by its

The Inspector of Police

Salem Town, All Women Police Station

Salem

Crime No.18 of 2015

... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374 (2) of Criminal

Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed

in New Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, POCSO

Cases, Special Court, Salem dated 14.09.2021.

For Appellant

: M/s.S.Sridevi

Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Sugendran

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/20

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

CRL A No.535 of 2021

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in New Spl.S.C.No.20 of

2019 dated 14.09.2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, POCSO Cases,

Special Court, Salem.

2.The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.18 of

2015 against the appellant initially for the offence under Section 506(ii)

IPC and Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet for the offence under

Section 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012 before Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem and the same was

taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge, after

completing the formalities framed charges against the appellant for the

offence under Section 506(2) IPC and Section 5(l) of POCSO Act 2012

punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and subsequently, the case

was transferred to the Special Court for POCSO Cases, Salem, and

assigned new number Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2019.

2/20

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

CRL A No.535 of 2021

3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the

prosecution, during trial before the trial Court, totally 11 witnesses were

examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P.1

to P.19 and one material object was exhibited.

4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses,

incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same as false and

pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were

examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 no documentary evidence was produced.

5. On conclusion of trial after hearing the arguments advanced on

either side and also considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge,

found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 5(l) of POCSO

Act 2012 punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506(1)

of IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo Ten years Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo simple

3/20

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

CRL A No.535 of 2021

imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence under

Section 5(l) of POCSO Act 2012 punishable under Section 6 of POCSO

Act; to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period

of three months for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC. Challenging

the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the

present appeal before this Court.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant the neighbour of

the victim girl and he is survived by his wife and child. The wife of the

appellant is a handicapped in leg. Hence, the neighbour women used to

help her in doing household work and to take care of her child. Further,

whenever the wife of the appellant used to sit in the neighbour's house,

she would ask the victim girl to fetch milk for the child from her house

and the victim