Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, L. Victoria Gowri, JJ
Pandy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Alagumani
For the Respondents: B. Nambi Selvan

The testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, even if mentally disabled, can form the sole basis for a conviction if it is found to be consistent and credible. Furthermore, once primary facts are established, the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act effectively shifts the evidentiary burden.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) - Sections 5(n), 5(k) and 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366-A and 506(ii) - Sexual assault on a minor child with mental disability by a close relative - Conviction and sentence - Appropriateness of life imprisonment - Testimony of the child victim, even if mentally disabled, if found consistent and credible, can form the basis of conviction without corroboration - Section 29 of POCSO Act mandates a presumption of guilt when elements are established and not rebutted by accused - Appellate court not to interfere with sentence if it is found reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the offence - Conviction upheld and appeal dismissed. (Paras 8.1, 8.5, 8.10 and 8.11)

(B) Evidence - Child witness - Credibility - Disability of the victim does not inherently affect the reliability of her testimony in sexual assault cases; rather, the vulnerability of such victims necessitates higher scrutiny and protection from courts, and their testimony provided consistently can be held as conclusive evidence. (Paras 8.1 and 8.2)

(C) Medical Evidence - Absence of physical signs of assault or spermatozoa in a child victim’s medico-legal report is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as it may be explained by the physiology of the victim or the passage of time. (Para 8.3)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, the maternal uncle of the 13-year-old victim, was accused of forcibly taking the victim, who is a differently-abled person with 60% mental retardation, and committing penetrative sexual assault. The trial court convicted the accused under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged this on grounds of missing initial complaints, delayed investigation, and lack of corroborating medical evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony to be cogent and consistent, fully supported by the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act. It held that the absence of spermatozoa did not negate the commission of the offence and affirmed that the trial court's sentencing was appropriate given the breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court merit interference by the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of a child victim, when found reliable and corroborated by circumstances, is sufficient for conviction; the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, in the absence of valid rebuttal evidence by the accused, justifies the conviction and the imposition of severe sentences for heinous crimes against minors.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges, procedural history, and evidence presented before the trial court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. summary of defense arguments concerning investigative lapses and evidentiary contradictions. (Para 7)
3. appellate court's re-appreciation of evidence, weight of victim testimony, and application of pocso act statutory presumptions. (Para 8)
4. final affirmation of the trial court's verdict based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 9 , 10)

J U D G M E N T

L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J. ,

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the special court for trial of cases under the protection of children from sexual offences act, Thoothukudi district in Spl.Sessions Case No.45 of 2019, dated 06.11.2019. By the above judgement, the learned Trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him as detailed below:

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in appeal are addressed according to the ranks in the learned Trial Court.

3. Three charges were framed as against the accused and the charges framed as against the accused by the learned Trial Court on 26.07.2019 are briefly as follows:

3.1. The aggrieved victim child of age 13 years is residing with her mother at Muthalipatti, Perilovanpatti post, Thoothukudi district. The accused is the second degree uncle of the aggrieved victim child. The aggrieved child/victim is a mentally retarded, differently abled person. On 24.01.2019 evening at about 6 p.m, while the victim went to answer her nature’s call, amongst Prasopis Julieflora (Velikaruvai) shrubs, the accused had forcibly procured the minor victim with a sexual intention and had committed an offence under Section 366-A of IPC.

3.2. Knowing that the victim is a minor girl of age 13 and is a mentally retarded, differently abled child, the accused had procured her into the agricultural land of one Mr.Vignesh, and had embraced her and had kissed her, compelling her to lie down and removed her sudidhar pant and panties against her will and had committed sexual assault on the child, thereby committing offences under section 5(n)(k) r/w 6 of POCSO Act ,2012.

3.3.On the said day, in the said time, as explained supra and in the said place, while the accused was indulging in forcibly conducting himself to sexually assault the victim child on the child's agitation, and when the child screamed out of pain, the accused had criminally intimidated her that he will kill her if she created noise, thereby committing an offence under section 506 (ii) of IPC.

4. The learned Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, on the strength of the oral and documentary evidences before it had found that the accused is guilty of having committed the offences and thereby convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of offences under Section 5(n)(k) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act ,2012, and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the commission of offence under Section 366 - A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a final of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and that the sentences shall run concurrently through its judgement in special calendar case No. 45 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019. The said judgement of the learned Trial Court is assailed in the present appeal.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows::

5.1. The accused is a Cooly Labour and the victim child “V” are residents of Muthalipatti, Perilovanpatti village , Ettaiyapuram. The victim child “V” was aged 13 years at the time of offence and she had been residing with her mother. The accused aged 60/2019 is the second degree maternal uncl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 7314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP. Velmurugan, L. Victoria Gowri, JJPandy – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCrl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, L. Victoria Gowri, JJ
Pandy – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022