Bail Slip

The Appellant herein/Accused Namely Amul Raj S/o.Kaliappan

aged 39 years was directed to be released on Bail as per order

of this Hon'ble Court dated 18/12/2020 made in Crl.MP.No.17156

of 2020 in Crl.A.No.804 of 2019.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.A.No.804 of 2019

Amul Raj

... Appellant/Accused

-Vs-

State rep.by:

The Inspector of Police,

Nallipalayam Police Station,

Namakkal District.

Crime No.375 of 2016

... Respondent/Complainant

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

Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence

imposed in Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2017 dated 05.01.2018 on the file of

Sessions (FTC) Mahila Court, Namakkal.

For Appellant

:

M/s.Vasavi Sridevi,

Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent :

Ms.T.P.Savitha,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

*****

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction

and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track

Mahila), Namakkal in Special C.C.No.6 of 2017, dated 05.01.2018.

2.The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime

No.375 of 2016, for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC against

the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the mother of

the victim child (PW1). After completing investigation, the

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

respondent police altered the charges into Section 366 IPC and

Section 3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and

laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast

Track Mahila), Namakkal and the same was taken on file in

Special C.C.No.6 of 2017.

3.After completing the formalities under Section 207

Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charge

against the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, farmed

charges under Section 366(A) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO

Act.

4.After completing the trial and hearing the arguments

advanced on either side and also considering the oral and

documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the

appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced as follows:-

●

For offence under Section 366(A) IPC, the appellant to

undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous

Imprisonment.

●

For offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, the

appellant to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo six months

Rigorous Imprisonment.

5.Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and

sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this

Court.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

there are material contradictions between the prosecution

witnesses and also between the statement of the victim child

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., (Ex.P4) and the evidence of

the victim child (PW2). The learned counsel would further

submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the

victim child and also failed to prove whether she was a child

under the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence. The victim

child (PW2) while deposing before the trial Court, has stated

that she was born on 11.09.2000, on the contrary, the school

authority, where the victim child was studied gave the Age

Certificate (Ex.P8) that the victim child was born on

30.05.2000. Hence, there are material contradictions and

discrepancies regarding the date of birth of the victim child.

In these type of cases, it is duty of the prosecution first of

all to prove the age of the victim child and she was a minor

under the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence and also she

was a child comes under the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the

POCSO Act. On the side of the prosecution, no c