Advocates:
['M/S R S SIVAPRIYA', '', 'N MANIKANDAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.A.No.464 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 08.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.A.No.464 of 2022

Perumalsamy

...Appellant

Vs.

The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Perur, Coimbatore.

(Cr.No.20/2019)

...Respondent

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set

aside the conviction and sentence made in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2020 dated

04.04.2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial

of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Sugendran

Additional Public Prosecutor

------

1/16

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

Crl.A.No.464 of 2022

JUDGMENT

The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction

and sentence dated 04.04.2022 made in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2020 by the

learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under the

POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2

The respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2019

against the appellant for the offence under Section 9(m) punishable under

Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in

short “POCSO Act”) (3 counts) and Section 506(i) (3 counts) IPC. After

completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the

learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under the

POCSO Act, Coimbatore, which was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.16 of

2020. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the accused and the

prosecution and after perusing the records, since there is prima facie case,

framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section

9(m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act (3 counts) and Section

506(i) (3 counts) IPC.

2/16

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

Crl.A.No.464 of 2022

3

Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the

prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14 and

Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. After completing examination of prosecution

witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of

prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On

the side of the defence, D.W.1 wife of the appellant was examined and no

document was marked. Two Court documents were marked as Ex.C1 and

Ex.C2.

4

The learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of

Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, on completion of trial and hearing

arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 04.04.2022 convicted

the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 9(m) (3 counts)

punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) (3

counts) of IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of five years for each count and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3/16

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

Crl.A.No.464 of 2022

a further period of one year for each default for the offence under Section

9(m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count and to pay a

fine of Rs.1000/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a further period of one month for each default for the

offence under Section 506(i) IPC and ordered both the sentences to run

concurrently. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and

sentence, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal before this

Court.

5

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would

submit that there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.4 regarding the

date of filing the complaint. P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated that near the house of

the appellant there were ar