BAIL SLIP

The Accused namely Rangaraj, S/o.Vedan, male, aged about

31 / 2014 on your file was released on bail as ordered dated

22.12.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.728 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.472 of

2020 on the file of the High Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

CRL.A.No.472 of 2020

Rangaraj

.. Appellant/Accused

Versus

State Rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Erode.

Crime No.5 of 2014.

.. Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of

Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction and sentence

passed against the appellant dated 12.08.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.19

of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge Magalir Neethi Mandram,

Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode.

For Appellant

:

Mr.H.Maruthiraj

Legal Aid Counsel for Appellant

For Respondent

:

Mr.J.C.Durairaj

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment

dated 12.08.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2018, on the file of the

Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court,

Erode.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2014, the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

mother of the victim child gave a complaint in Sivagiri Police

Station against her husband (i.e., child's father) for

misbehaving with her mentally retarded child with sexual

intention. Based on such complaint, the Sivagiri Police

registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2014, on 04.04.2014, against

the father of the victim child for the offence under Section 7

r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Later the case was transferred

to All Women Police Station for investigation, since the offence

is against woman. Thereafter, the respondent/police registered a

case in Crime No.5 of 2014, on 19.04.2014, against the appellant

for the said offences.

3.After investigation, the respondent/police laid charge

sheet before the Special Court, since the offence is against the

women, particularly, child under the definition of Section 2(1)

(d) of the POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Judge took the charge

sheet on file in Spl. S.C.No.19 of 2018. After completing the

formalities, charges were framed against the appellant for the

above said offences.

4.In order to substantiate the charges framed against the

appellant, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16

witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and 18 documents

as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18, were marked and no material object was

produced.

5.After completing examination of prosecution witnesses,

when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of

prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning

him under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false and

pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was

examined and no document was marked.

6.On conclusion of trial, after hearing the arguments

advanced on the either side and considering the materials, the

Special court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for

the offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act, which is punishable

under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced him to undergo 5

years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. However, the

Trial Court ordered to give set off for the period of

imprisonment already undergone by him as per Section 428 of

Cr.P.C.

7.Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the appellant filed the present appeal before this Court.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted

that though the date of occurrence was on 24.03.2014, the

complaint was given only on 04.04.2014, and therefore, there was

delay in filing the complaint. Subsequently the case was also

transfered from the Sivagiri Po