Advocates:
['M/S PA KADIRVEL', '', 'LEGAL AID COUNSEL', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUDUCHERRY']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.A.No.165 of 2020

Rajesh

...Appellant/Accused

Versus

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Thirukkanur Police Station,

Puducherry State.

Crime No.44 of 2016

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.,

against the judgment of the learned Special Judge under the

POCSO Act 2012 and Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry

convicting the appellant for the offences

(1) under section 365 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years

Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in

default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2) under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

offences Act 2012 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years

Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in

default to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment vide a

judgment dated 30.01.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016.

For Appellant

: Mr.Pa.Kadirvel

Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane

Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of

the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act 2012 and Principal

Sessions Judge, Puducherry convicting the appellant dated

30.01.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The respondent police registered the case against the

appellant in Crime No.44 of 2016 for the offence under section

365 IPC. Subsequently during the investigation the offence has

been altered into section 365 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act

2012. After the investigation, laid charge sheet before the

learned Special Judge, Puducherry. Since the offence is against

child, the learned Special Judge after completing the

formalities, taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016.

After the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the

appellant for the offence under section 365 IPC, sentenced him

to undergo 7 years R.I and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- indefault to

undergo R.I for three months. For the offence under section 6 of

POCSO Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I for 3

months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and

sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal before this

Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

according to the appellant, the occurrence is said to have taken

place on 09.06.2016 whereas the complaint was given on

10.06.2016 and the delay in filing the complaint has not been

properly explained and even the victim girl soon after securing,

she has not stated anything against the appellant. Subsequently

after counselling, the victim girl has narrated the incident.

Then only, the police obtained statement against the appellant.

There is material contradiction between the evidence of victim

girl and parents of the victim girl and brother of the victim

girl. The doctor has clearly deposed in her statement that there

is no possibility of recent sexual intercourse and also there is

no external injuries. He further submitted that in the statement

recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C also, it is stated that she

has not stated anything before the respondent police and also

the girl has clearly stated that the appellant has not forcibly

taken her and also has not stated that the appellant had

forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. So the prosecution has

not proved the case and they have not stated how they traced out

the appellant and the victim girl. Even the victim girl has

stated that she only voluntarily went with the appellant since

the parents assaulted the victim girl and restricted her. As per

the instructions of victim girl, the appellant has taken the

victim girl. Therefore, the appellant no way connected wi