IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Kuttiyandi ..Appellant Vs.

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thavalakuppam P.S.

Pondicherry.(Cr.No.9/2021)

2.XXXX XXXXX XXXXX Puducherry – 605 007. ..Respondents (R2/defacto complainant is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 09.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.311 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.15/2024)

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2023, passed in Special SC.No.47/2023 by the Special Court, Pondicherry, therby acquitting the accused.

For Appellant :: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents :: Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

for R1 Mr.R.Vivekanandan for R2

J U D G M E N T

The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section

506(i) of IPC.

2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that in the Month of May 2019, the appellant had committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim girl, aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence, by touching her private parts on several occasions and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) The father of the victim girl, PW1, had lodged a complaint against the appellant before the Child Welfare Committee on 01.02.2021 alleging that he came to know from one Manivannan PW6, that the appellant had committed aggravated sexual assault, by touching the chest and the back of the victim girl, in the guise of drying her with a towel after she came out of the bathroom. The said complaint was forwarded by PW7 to PW8. Thereafter, PW8, conducted an enquiry and forwarded the complaint of PW1 to the Superintendent of Police. PW11, the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint had registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2021 for the offences under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The FIR was marked as Ext.P6. Thereafter, the Investigation was conducted by PW12, who filed the final report against the appellant for the offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) of IPC before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and under Section 506(ii) of IPC, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(iii) The prosectution examined 12 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P8. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same The appellant had examined DW1 and DW2 and marked Exts.D1 to D4.

(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 Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of IPC. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and also sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. Hence, the accused/appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3.Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/State, and also perused the record.

4.Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complaint was lodged 1 ½ years after the alleged occurrence; that PW1 cannot be believed; that according to PW1, he came to know of the occurrence from PW6 Manivannan, who came to know of the occurrence from PW4, the wife of the appellant; that both PW4 and PW6 turned hostile; that the wife