CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14 / 06 / 2023

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03 / 07 / 2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

AND

CRL.M.P.NO.5497 OF 2023

IN

CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

Manickam

...

Appellant

Versus

The State

Rep. By The Inspector of Police

Anthiyur Circle,

Erode District.

(Crime No.249/2014)

...

Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure

Code, against the judgment dated 13.03.2015 passed in Special S.C.No.7 of

2014 on the file of Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode

and acquit the appellant / accused from the offence charged.

1/22

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

CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Pushpakaran

For Respondent

:

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

JUDGMENT

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2014 on the

file of the learned District Judge, Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram

(Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. He stood charged for offences under

Section 370 (4) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [hereinafter referred to

as “IPC” for the sake of brevity]. and Section 4 read with 18 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as

“POCSO Act” for the sake of brevity). By judgment dated 13.03.2015, the

trial Court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo

Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine,

further undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 370(4) of

IPC; and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months simple

2/22

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

CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

imprisonment under Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act. Challenging the

said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this Appeal before

this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1. P.W.2 is the victim in this case. At the time of occurrence,

she was studying 8^th Standard. PW1 is the mother of the victim. The accused/

appellant and PW1 along with her family are residing in the same street. The

case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2014 at about 08.30 pm, the victim

was returning by walk from the house of her maternal aunt (Mother's sister)

which is in the same locality. The accused/appellant had encountered and

offered her that he will drop her at her house and asked her to get on his bi-

cycle and took her along with him to the house of one XX (Identity hidden).

Then the accused asked the victim to come inside the house (Aasaram) of

XX. Then, with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her, the accused

tried to disrobe the victim and thereby, committed the offences under Section

370 (4) of IPC and Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act. Thereafer, PW1 -

3/22

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

CRL.A.NO.355 OF 2020

mother of the victim went to Anthiyur Police Station and preferred a

complaint on 10.09.2014 at 07.00 a.m. PW12 the then Inspector of Police on

receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.249 of 2014

initially under Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act and after investigation, it

was altered into Section 370 (4) of IPC and Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO

Act and filed charge sheet accordingly on 19.09.2014.

2.2. The trial court framed charges under section 370 (4) of IPC

and section 4 read with 18 of the POCSO Act. Since the appellant accused

denied the charges framed against him, trial was ordered. With a view to

prove the charges, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9 were marked. No material objects were marked on either side. No

defense witnesses and documents were adduced on the side of the accused.

A