Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, P. Dhanabal, JJ
Kamaraj Perumal – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution’s case established through victim’s testimony and corroborating evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. defendants argued against the reliability of witness testimonies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court examined validity of charges, affirming conviction but modifying sentence based on circumstances. (Para 11 , 16 , 18) |
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
P.DHANABAL , J. ,
Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Special Court (POCO Act Cases) Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Spl.S.C.No.76 of 2020 dated 24.11.2022 the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants.
2. Originally there are two accused in this case and the first accused has faced charge for the offences under Sections 5 (m)(n)(l)r/w.6 of POCSO Act and Sections 468 ,471,420 of IPC and the second accused has been charged for the offence under Section 5 (m)(n)(l)r/w.6 of and Section 5 06(i) of .
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the appellant in Crl.A(MD) No. 313 of 2023 hereinafter referred to as second accused and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.354 of 2026 hereinafter referred to as first accused.
4. The trial Court convicted the first accused for the offences
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
