The court ruled that charges under the POCSO Act were invalid as the offence date predates the Act's implementation.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.09.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.93 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Cuddalore.

2. The appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced as detailed below:-

3. According to the prosecution, the victim/PW1's mother died at early age and as such, she was living with her maternal grandparents. The first accused had contacted the victim over phone and informed her that he was cheated and failed in love. He started to call her repeatedly for solace and later informed PW1 that he was in love with her. Since the first accused threatened that he would commit suicide, PW1 also fall in love with the first accused and they started to meet very often and chat in isolation.

4. On coming to know about the same, PW1 was reprimanded by her family, due to which, on 05.06.2013, she attempted to commit suicide and when the family members called the first accused and questioned him, he said that he would marry her. PW1 continued to chat with the first accused. On 15.06.2013, when PW1 was in her grandmother's house, the first accused came and on noticing that she was alone, enticed her and without her consent, even when she resisted, the first accused forcibly had a sexual relationship with her. The first accused promised to marry PW1 and asked her not to reveal it to anyone.

5. Even thereafter, when both PW1 and the first accused were in Chennai, they had roamed around several places and the first accused had sexual relationship with PW1 on several instances and the last of such relationship was on 05.05.2016. Later, when the first accused stopped talking with PW1, she informed the same to her grandparents and relatives. PW1 along with her relatives and villagers went to the first accused's house on 27.05.2016 and questioned the first accused. The accused 2 to 7 had shouted at PW1 with obscene words, humiliated and threatened to kill her, which resulted in lodging of the complaint.

6. On receipt of Ex.P1, the Inspector of Police/PW8 registered FIR/Ex.P5 for offences under Sections 294(b), 354, 506(i) and 376 IPC against the accused 1 to

7. PW8 prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P2 and a rough sketch/Ex.P6 and sent PW1 to the Doctor/PW6 for medical examination. The first accused was examined by the Doctor/PW7 and on completion of the investigation, PW8 filed the final report.

7. The trial court, on taking the case on file, issued summons, complied with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and framed the charges under Sections 417, 376, 506(ii) IPC as against the first accused, Section 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the accused 2, 5, 6 & 7 and Section 506(ii) IPC against the accused 3 & 4. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

8. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating materials available they denied the same as false. However, neither they examined any witness nor did they mark any documents. The trial court, after conclusion of the arguments, finding that as per evidence available PW1 was a child during the occurrence, altered the charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. 9. The charges were altered by including the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafte