In sexual offences against minors under special legislation, the victim’s testimony is sufficient for conviction if found credible. Parental hostility does not invalidate the prosecution's case when supported by medical evidence and statutory age verification. Consent is legally immaterial regarding minors.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN.,J)

1.These appeals are filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur made in Special S.C.No.52 of 2020, dated 11.11.2021.

2.The appellants are A1 to A3 and since all the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, all the appeals are taken up and tried together.

3.The respondent Police registered a case in crime No.l8 of 2020 for the offence under Section 5 (l)(6)(7)(8) of POCSO Act and section 328 and 506(ii) IPC against the appellants. Subsequently, after investigation, laid charge sheet against the appellants and two others for the offence under Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 ,7 r/w 8,16 r/w Section 17 of POCSO Act and also Section 328 and 506(ii) IPC before the POCSO Court, Srivilliputhur. Since the offence is against the child, the Special Court took cognizance of the charge sheet on file in Special S.C.No.52 of 2020. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, framed charges as against the first accused for the offence under Section 328 IPC and under Section 5 (l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and also under Section 5 06(I) IPC. Against the second accused framed charges for the offence under Section 7 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act, against third accused framed charges for the offence under Section 7 r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act, against the accused 4 and 5, framed charges for the offence under Section 16 r/w Section 17 of POCSO Act. In order to substantiate the charges, during trial, on the side of prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13. Supporting documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. No material object was exhibited.

4.After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court culled out the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants and put question under section 313 Cr.P.C., for which the appellants denied it as false. On the side of the defense, two witnesses were examined and no document was marked. On completion of evidence and hearing of arguments on either side, the first accused was convicted under Section 6 r/w Section 5 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of R.10,000/- in default to under go six months simple imprisonment and both sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The second accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 8 r/w Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012. The third accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 8 r/w Section 7 of POCSO Act, 2012.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the first accused has filed CRL.A(MD)NO.741 of 2022 and the second accused has filed the CRL.A(MD)NO.499 of 2021 and the third accused has filed CRL.A(MD)No. 488 of 2021. Since all the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, they are taken up and heard together. However in order to avoid confusion and for better understanding, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the three accused have made similar submissions, and, in order to avoid repetition, their submissions have been summarized as follows:-

P.W.1 is the mother of the victim, who lodged the complaint turned hostile and not support the case of