High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.67 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 20.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.No.67 of 2023Venkatesh...Appellant The State Rep. by:-The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Gudalur,Nilgiris Districtcrime No.2 of 2018... RespondentPrayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment and conviction dated made in Spl.CC.No.18 of 2018 on the file of Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District dated 30.03.2022 and to acquit the appellant. For Appellant : Mr.C.VenkatesanFor Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENT1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment passed in Spl.CC.No.18 of 2018 on the file of Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District dated 30.03.2022, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her husband have four daughters and one son. The victim girl is their third daughter. The accused was their neighbour. On 11.03.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant had returned to her home after finishing her cooly work, the victim was found missing and she started to search her. At that juncture, her neighbours had informed that they had seen her crying and she had returned from a forest area. When she was questioned by the defacto complainant, she had complained of pain in her private part and informed that the accused had taken her to the nearby forest area and had committed sexual assault on her by removing her dress. She further stated that he hugged her and kissed her. Thereafter, he inserted his finger into her private part. Immediately, she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Masinagudi for treatment. Thereafter, she was 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.67 of 2023referred for higher treatment to Government Hospital Udagamandalam. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.2 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. 3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW18 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The prosecution had produced four material objects as MO.1 to MO.4. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000, in default of which he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. He was convicted also for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years of imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which, he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

44.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the age of the victim girl. Except the school certificate, no other documents were produced to prove the age of the victim girl. Further, there are contradictions between PW1's evidence and that of others. In fact, other neighbours turned hostile and even then, the trial court convicted the appellant. Further, the person who stood as witness to the confession statement turned hostile. Even as per the doctor's report, there was no injury on the victim's private part and there was no semen seen. The report was marked as Ex.P18. As per the chemical analysis report, there was nothing found corroborating the evidence of the victim as well as PW1. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim girl was examined as PW2. The mother of the victim was examined as PW1. The bonafide certificate was issued by the teacher, who was examined as PW3. The doctor, who had examined the victim was examined as PW16. Therefore, the trial court categorically proved the charges and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.67 of 2023order of conviction does not require any interference by this Court. 6.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused, all the materials placed before this Court. 7.Admittedly, the appellant is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. The victim was kidnapped by the appellant on 11.03.2018 to the forest area to commit sexual assault on her. The victim girl did not complete even seven years of age. After removal of her dress,the appellant had committed sexual assault on her. Therefore, she complained pain on her private part and in lower abdomen to her mother, who is the complainant. The victim further stated that the accused hugged her and kissed her. Thereafter, after laying her down, he removed her dress and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. It is relevant to extract the relevant portion of the evidence of the victim girl as follows: vd;id bt';fnlc&; fhl;Lf;F Tg;gpl;L nghdhd;. bt';fnlc&; vd; nkny gLj;jhd;. bt';fnlc&; vd; Jzp vy;yhk; fHl;odhd;. tpuiy itj;jhd; vd;D rpWkp jd; tyJ ifahy; mtUila rpWePh; fHpf;Fk; ,lj;ij 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6bjhl;L Twfpwhh;. bt';fnlc&; vdf;F vd; cjl;Lf;F fPH; fp!; bfhLj;jhd;. RpWkp jd; tyJ ifahy; jdJ tyJ fz;zk;. ,lJ fz;zk;. ,lJ be";R gFjp. tyJ be";R gFjp. Mfpa gFjpfis bjhl;L fhz;gpj;J m';bfy;yhk; vjphp bt';fnlc&; fp!; bfhLj;jhd; vd;W Twfpwhh;. vjphp bt';fnlc&; vd;id fl;og;gpoj;jhd;. vd; cr;rh nghFk; ,lj;jpy; vjphp bt';fnlc&; ifia itj;jhd;. vd; cr;rh nghFk; ,lj;jpy; vjphp bt';fnlc&xU ifia itj;jhd;/8.After the victim was given first aid, she was referred for higher hospital for better treatment. The doctor, who had given first aid, was examined as PW15. She deposed that the victim informed about the occurrence and as such, she referred her for higher treatment after giving first aid. The hospital in which PW15 was working is a primary health centre and as such she did not register any accident register. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Udamagandalam. There, PW16 examined and treated the victim. PW16 categorically deposed as follows:ehd; ,t;tHf;fpy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpia 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.67 of 2023ghpnrhjpj;j nghJ mtuJ bgz; cWg;gpd; btspg;g[wk; rhjhuzkhf ,Ue;jJ. fd;dpj;jpiu fpHpatpy;iy. Labia minora tpd; cs;g[wk; ,uz;L g[wKk; rpte;jpUe;jJ. nkYk; tyJg[w ,Lg;g[ gFjpapy; xU fhaj;jGk;g[ query nail mark ,Ue;jJ. tapw;wpd;fPH; gFjpapd; tyJ g[wk; rPuha;g;g[ fha';fs; ,Ue;jd. nkYk; 1 br/kP/ mst[f;F fPuy; jGk;g[ ,lJ fz;zj;jpy; K:f;fpd; mUfpy; ,Ue;jJ/ ,t;tHf;fpy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpaplkpUe;J Buccal Swab, Buccal Smear, Swab and Smear from internal genitalia nrfuk; bra;ag;gl;L nfhit tl;lhu jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpw;F Ma;t[f;F vd;dhy; mDg;gg;gl;lJ. nfhit tl;lhu jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpy; ,Ue;J 4/4/2018k; njjpapl;l mrhM 10 caphpay; mwpf;if fpilf;fg;bgw;wJ. ,e;j mrhM 10 caphpay; mwpf;ifg;go ,t;tHf;fpy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpaplkpUe;J nrfhpf;fg;gl;l Buccal Swab kw;Wk; Vaginal Swaby; tpe;J fhzg;gltpy;iy. Buccal Smear kw;;Wk; Vaginal Smeary; tpe;jQqf;fs; fhzg;gltpy;iy. ehd; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpapd; mrhM 11 tpgj;J gjpntl;od; gpd;g[wk; vd;Dila kUj;Jt ghpnrhjid mwpf;ifia tH';fpa[s;nsd;/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

89.Thus it is clear that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl though chemical analysis report says that no sperm was found. The accident register was marked as Ex.P11. The victim sustained injury in and around the private part. The mother of the victim was examined as PW1. She categorically narrated the incident and she had taken the victim to the hospital. Therefore, the prosecution had categorically proved the charge against the appellant. As such, minor contradictions and discrepancies would not affect the case of the prosecution at any cost since the victim deposed categorically about the incident and charges have been proved by the prosecution. The victims 's evidence is the best evidence and it is also corroborated by PW15-the doctor who treated the victim. The appellant was also duly identified by the victim and in fact, while coming out from forest, he was beaten by the neighbours. Though the neighbours turned hostile, the prosecution case is categorically proved by the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the appellant has committed very serious and heinous offence against the victim girl and the order of conviction does not suffer with any illegality. As such, this criminal appeal fails.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.67 of 202310.In view of the above discussion, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 20.06.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderlokG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokTo1.Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris 2.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Gudalur,Nilgiris District3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10Crl.A.No.67 of 202320.06.202510/10