IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Jayakumar

Appellant(s)

Vs

The State by

Inspector of Police,

Namagiripettai Police Station,

Namakkal District

Crime No.159 of 2015.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 09.03.2021 passed in Special SC.No.23/2018 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi

Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Karthik

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajakumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence

imposed on the appellant vide judgment passed on 09.03.2021, in Spl.C.C.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions

Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Namakkal.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2015 at about 4:00 p.m.,

when the victim girl who was the neighbour of the appellant went to attend

nature's call in a vacant land, the appellant hugged and kissed her with sexual intention; that one Chinrasu, who was then a Juvenile had photographed the said incident; that the appellant threatened that he will circulate the said photographs, if the victim discloses the said incident to any person and thus committed the offences under Sections 8 of the POCSO Act and Section11(v)

r/w 12 of the POCSO Act.

3.The FIR, Ex.P4 was registered on 03.06.2015, on the complaint, Ex.P1 given by PW1 father of the victim. PW11, the Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation after registering the FIR. He had seized the mobile phone from the Juvenile accused Chinrasu and, produced the Juvenile accused before the Juvenile Justice Board. The victim girl was sent for medical examination. Thereafter, PW11 handed over the investigation to PW12, who filed the final report against the appellant for the aforesaid offences before the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court (Fast Track Mahila Court) Namakkal, which was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.23 of 2018.

4.On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charges against the accused, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

5.To prove the case, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses PW1 to PW12 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313(1) (b) Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

6.On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Sections 11(v) r/w 12 of the POCSO Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal.

7.Heard Mr.M.Karthik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Rajakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim's evidence cannot be believed; that though it is the prosecution case that the alleged incident was photographed, the respondent police had not produced the photos or the mobile phone, which were alleged to have been seized from the Juvenile accused Chinrasu; that therefore, the Court has to draw adverse inference against the prosecution for non production of those vital evidences; that the Juvenile accused was tried before the Juvenile Justice Board and was acquitted by judgment dated 11.11.2022, in J.C.No.20 of 2018, by the Juvenile Justice Board, Namakkal and that considering the above facts and the delay in lodging of the complaint, the impugned judgment cannot be sustai