The court ruled that mere touching qualifies as sexual assault under POCSO, and delays in reporting do not inherently weaken the prosecution's case when credible victim testimony exists.

JUDGMENT

P.VELMURUGAN , J. ,

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Spl.S.C.No. 33 of 2015, dated 18.02.2022.

2. By the above judgment the trial Court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as detailed below:

Further, the trial Court has recommended the District Collector, Virudhunagar pay Rs.10,00,000/- each as final compensation after deducting the paid interim compensation. if any, to each child victim/survivor through RTGS or NEFT in their bank account. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, is also directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the District Collector Virudhunagar to comply with respect to the compensation aspect.

3.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

3.1 The appellant, employed as the nutritional Noon Meal Organizer at the Government Adhi Dravidar welfare primary school at Sundararajapuram in Rajapalayam lured the two victims to come to noon meal kitchen at 7.00am., hours. While so on or before 23.07.2015 the appellant called the victim into kitchen and he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault on the two minor victims and thereafter he gave Rs.5 each to the child victims and also threatened them not to disclose the same to anyone. The Headmistress of the school enquired them and ascertained the facts. Then the headmistress invited the parents of the child victims and narrated the same to them and thereafter the incident came to light before the concerned authorities, whereby investigation started consequently.

3.2 After completion of investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.33 of

2015. 3.3. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 4 r/w.3(d) of POCSO Act (2 counts), 10 r/w. 9(m) of POCSO Act (2 counts), 6 r/w.5(m) of POCSO Act (2 counts), 6r/w.5(f) of POCSO Act (2 counts)and Section 5 06(i) of IPC

3.4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked 14 exhibits as Ex.P.1 to P.14.

3.5. After examination of prosecution witnesses, when the appellant was questioned under Section 3 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was any document marked.

4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by judgment dated 24.02.2022, convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed in Paragraph No.2 s