BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 24.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A(MD)No.724 of 2022

Soundarpandi : Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

The State Rep. By its

The Inspector of Police,

Devathanapatti Police Station,

Theni District

Crime No.427 of 2014 : Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the impugned judgment made in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2015 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni

District dated 13.02.2018 and set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr. M.Jegadeesh Pandian

For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

P.VELMURUGAN , J. , This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni District in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2015 dated 13.02.2018

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

Penal Provisions Sentence of Fine Amount Imprisonment

6 of POCSO Act Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- i/d to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment

3.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

3.1. On 02.10.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., while the victim/P.W.2 was alone in her house, the accused, who is a neighbour took her into his house and is alleged to have committed sexual assault on the victim. Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant a case was registered in Crime No.427 of 2014 for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3.2 After completion of investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2015.

3.3. On appearance of the accused the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were complied with. . The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3.4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked 14 exhibits as Ex.P.1 to P.14. No material objects were marked.

3.5. After examination of prosecution witnesses, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and no document was marked.

4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by judgment dated 13.02.2018 convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the victim did not state state anything regarding the aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and that her evidence was not corroborated by the testimony of any other other witnesses. The doctor who examined the victim, was examined as P.W.8, noted the injuries in the accident register marked as Ex.P.5 which clearly states that the mother of the victim refused to allow the doctor to conduct clinical examination. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the case of prosecution. He would further submit that though the victim was admitted in the hospital on 06.10.2014 for clinical examination only during a subsequent examination were old injuries found. Therefore the possibility of injuries caused during the treatment in order to register a false case cannot be ruled out, which creates a reasonable doubt.

Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries sustained by the victim were only due to penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant. The doctor examined the victim only on 09.10.2024, therefore injuries could have been caused through some other means. The provisions of POCSO Act were not complied with. The place of occurrence is highly doubtful.