IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Anantha Reddy

S/o. Rama Reddy, B-Kothapalli Village,

Devakanapalli Post, Denkanikottai

Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

Appellant(s)

Vs

State by

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.12/2019)

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.24/2019 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the

Judgment dated 27.03.2023.

For Appellant(s): Mr. E.Kannadasan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Raja Kumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the

appellant for the offences under Section 9 r/w 10 of the POCSO Act and Section

506(i) of IPC.

2(i) The prosecution case is that the victim and her parents were residing at Bangalore; that they had come to their native village at Krishnagiri District for casting their votes in the General Elections; that after the victims parents casted their votes, they left for Bangalore leaving the victim in the custody of the grandparents of the victim; that the appellant was the neighbour; that on 05.05.2019 about about 11.00 a.m., the appellant called the victim to his house, locked the door from inside and thereafter, inappropriately touched her breast and private parts; that when the victim shouted for help, PW5, the daughter of the appellant came and thereafter, the victim left the house and that the appellant threatened the victim that if she disclosed the incident to any person, she would be done to death.

(ii) PW1, the mother of the victim had lodged the complaint on

25.05.2019, which was registered as Crime No.12 of 2019 under Section 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 (i) of the IPC. PW18, the Inspector of Police registered the FIR and investigation was conducted by PW19, the Inspector of Police. PW19, examined the witnesses and made arrangements to subject the victim to medical examination and after conclusion of the investigation, had filed the final report for the offences under Section 9 r/w 10 of the POCSO Act before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 9 r/w 10 and Section 506 (i) of IPC, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(iii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.19, marked 17 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P17. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1, and one document was marked as Ex.D1.

(iv) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, and held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 9 r/w 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 9 r/w 10 of POCSO Act 2012 and also sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the accused/appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3.Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4(i) Mr.E.Kannadasan, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned