Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Sanjay Behara – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, W-15, AWPS Royapuram, Chennai (crime No.12 of 2022) – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1618 of 2023 | Spl.SC.No.284 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Manoharan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Conviction under POCSO Act requires reliable identification of the accused; failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 7 r/w Section 8 - Criminal Appeal against conviction for sexual assault of minors - Prosecution failed to prove charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictions in victim testimonies and identification issues - The benefit of doubt is given to the appellant - The conviction modified to lesser offense under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof lies on prosecution - When the evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt, the accused must be acquitted. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of inappropriately touching two minor sisters in a dark room, with significant doubts raised about the identification and testimonies of the victims. The prosecution case was primarily based on eyewitness accounts that did not provide certainty regarding the identification of the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The only substantial evidence was a statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which contradicted the victims’ oral testimonies.
Issues: The central issue was whether the victims could reliably identify the accused given the conditions of the incident. The trial court initially convicted the appellant under Section 10 of POCSO based on insufficient evidence and identified contradictions in victim accounts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of reliable identification and consistent testimonies. The accused was ultimately acquitted on the original charge but convicted of lesser offenses under the POCSO Act.
Result: Criminal Appeal partly allowed; original conviction set aside, convicted for lesser offenses.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal conviction and identification (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the prosecution's evidence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observation on evidence and testimonies (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's ratio decidendi on burden of proof (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai passed in Spl.SC.No.284 of 2022 dated 08.08.2023, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 18.09.2022 at about
07.30 PM, when the victim children, who are the daughters of the complainant, were in a dressing room at Royapuram playground, the accused trespassed that room and sexually assaulted both the children. Immediately, it was informed to their father. Thereafter, complaint was lodged. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.12 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC and under Section 10 of POCSO Act(2 counts). After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court.
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo five years imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was arrested only on the ground of suspicion. Since no other person was available at the place of the occurrence, the appellant was roped into this crime. The appellant was a load man and at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was loading goods from a lorry near the playground. Therefore, he has been falsely roped into this crime since no person was available. Further, according to the case of the prosecution, while two children were playing in a room without light, they had bad touch. Further, they did not also identify the accused. When the appellant was beaten by others, they had seen him. Therefore, accused was not even identified by the victim children. Further, though both the victim stated that both had bad touch at the hands of the accused in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. , during their evidence, one victim did not even whisper about the bad touch. She deposed that her elder sister only had bad touch at the hands of the accused. Therefore, the trial court convicted the appellant for one count. The father of the victim was examined as PW1. He also deposed that he did not see the accused and when he was standing 150 meters away from the room, he was identified as accused. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge beyond any doubt.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that there were two victims and both are sisters. While they were playing in a dressing room and their father was playing game in the ground, they were touched inappropriately by the accused. The accused was duly identified by the victim and he was beaten by the general public for the act committed by him. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the appellant and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused, all the materials placed before this Court.
7. There are two victims. Both are sisters and while they were playing in a dressing room, they were touched inappropriately by the accused. The only point for consideration in this criminal appeal is that, whether the victims identified the accused since the alleged occurrence
