Madras High Court
Kumar @ Kumaresan vs State on 21 August, 2017
Author: P.N. Prakash
Bench: P.N. Prakash
Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 15.09.2021
DELIVERED ON 08.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
and
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
Kumar @ Kumaresan
S/o Govindasamy … Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State
Represented by the Inspector of Police
Erode North Police Station.
Erode District
(Cr.No.649 of 2016) … Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed in Special Case
No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimanram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode.
For appellant : Mr. P.K.Ganesh
For respondent : Mr. M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Heard through video conference) R.N.MANJULA, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed in Special Case No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimanram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as under:
The victim boy is the son the defacto complainant. On 17.11.2016, the victim boy went to his grandmother’s house and stayed there. Next day morning at about 9.00 a.m., he went to school by a mini bus. After the school was over, he did not reach back to his parents’ house. On the way to his home he got down at Erode bus stand and was urinating behind the bus. The accused who came there in a motorcycle took the victim boy by telling that he would drop him at his house.
As the accused took a different road, the victim boy questioned him. The accused threatened the victim boy and took him to a house in a place called Otta methai.
During night times, the accused confined the victim inside a room and compelled Page 2 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 him to have oral sex with him. He also committed anus- penile penetrative sexual offence with the boy. Whenever the boy cried out of fear, he was beaten by the accused. This had happened for one week.
2.1. The victim boy found out the name of the accused as Kumar @ Kumaresan while the accused was talking through cell phone with others. One day when the accused was talking through cell phone, the victim boy escaped from there and came to his house. After coming home, he told about the occurrence to his father and his father taken him to the police station, where he had already given a complaint that the boy was missing.
2.2. After the boy was enquired the charges of the case were altered to Sec.365, 343 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from sexual offences Act. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 367, 343, 324, 377 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After taking cognizance of the offence and after giving due opportunity, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 367, 346, 324, 377 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Page 3 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 Sexual Offences Act and he was questioned. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The brief evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as under:-
PW.1-Nagulesh who is the father of the victim boy and the complainant herein was examined as PW.1. His evidence would reveal that the victim was studying in 7th standard at the time of occurrence and he had some psychiatric issues; so he was in the habit of going to his friend’s house on his own, stay there for a few days and then come back. On 17.11.2016, the victim boy told his parents that he would go to his grand mother’s (PW.1’s mother) house. The next day morning PW.1’s mother sent the victim boy to school by bus. Since the boy did not reach back home from school and after searching him at the houses of his friends, PW.1 gave the complaint (Ex.P.1) on 24.11.2016. The victim boy returned home after a week. When PW.1 enquired him, he told that when he was standing in the Erode Bus Stand, a person came and told him that he would take him to his parents’ place in bike and so he went along with him. But the said person instead of taking him to his house took a different route and went to a house at ‘Otta methai’; he confined the victim boy in the said house for a week Page 4 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 and tortured him by committing different kinds of penetrative sexual assault on him; one day when the accused was speaking with his cell phone, the victim boy managed to escape from him. Knowing the occurrence from the victim boy, his father PW.1 took him to the Veerappan Chatram Police Station for enquiry; the police enquired the boy and took him for medical examination. They also took the boy to Court for recording his 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P.2) 3.1. The victim boy was examined as PW.2 and he identified the accused while he was present in the Court. He deposed that on 17.11.2016 he went to his grandmother; on the next day (18.11.2016) he went to school in a bus; he alighted down from the bus at Erode Bus Stand and was urinating behind the bus; at that time the accused came in a bike and developed conversation with him and he assured that he would leave him at his home in his bike; so PW.2 went along with him; instead of taking him to his parents’ house the accused took him to some other place and confined him in a house and committed repeated oral-penile and anus-penile penetrative sexual assault on him; one day when the accused was talking in a cell phone, the boy took his bike key and threw it away and then escaped from him and came to his house; after reaching home he told his parents about the occurrence; thereafter his parents took him to the police station and the Page 5 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 police also enquired him; he was taken to the hospital for medical examination by the police; he also went to Court and gave a statement before the learned Judge.
3.2. PW.3 is the mother of the victim boy and she has stated about the events that had preceded and followed the occurrence.
3.3. After the case was registered by PW.11- Sub Inspector of Police, he went to the house of PW.1 and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4), Rough Sketch (Ex.P.18) in the presence of the witnesses PW.4. On 28.11.2016 when the victim boy was brought by his father after he returned, he enquired the victim boy and recorded his statement. Thereafter he altered the charges from “boy missing’’ to Sec.365, 343 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from sexual offences Act and sent the alteration report (Ex.P.19) to Court. He arrested the accused on being informed by the informant. He also recorded the confession statement given by the accused and seized the vehicle used for the occurrence from the accused through a Seizure Mahazar and thereafter he sent request for sending the accused and the victim boy for medical examination. The accused took the police party to the place where he confined the victim boy. The investigation officer inspected the said place and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.22) and observation mahazar Page 6 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 (Ex.P.5) in the presence of the witnesses. He once again examined the witnesses.
He gave a request to the Commissioner of Erode Municipality for getting the birth certificate of the victim boy. On 07.12.2016 he took the victim boy and PW.1 to the Court and helped them to get their 164 Cr.P.C., statement recorded by the Court. After getting the proof of date of birth of the victim boy, he examined the Headmaster of the school where the victim boy has studied. He enquired the doctors who conducted the medical examination on the victim boy. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.367, 343, 324, 377 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3.4. During course of trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW.1 to 13 Exs.P1 to 26 were marked. On the side of the accused no evidence is produced. 3.5. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences under Sec.367, 346, 324 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Sec. 367 IPC; 2 years Page 7 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence Under Sec.346 IPC, 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sec.324 IPC and Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. Aggrieved over that, the accused has preferred this second appeal.
4. Heard, Mr. P.K.Ganesh, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the respondent State.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused on mere surmises and premises; the medical examination of the victim boy does not reveal any injury on his private part; having acquitted the accused from the charge under Sec.377 IPC by disbelieving the evidence of the victim boy, the trial Court proceeded to find the appellant/accused guilty for the offence Sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the learned Trial Judge has recorded the guilt of the Page 8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 accused basing on the sole evidence of the victim boy despite the fact that he was mentally ill and had bad habits.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in the offences of this nature the evidence of the victim plays a vital role and his evidence is cogent and clear and further if a person is charged for the offence under Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the initial presumption as to the overt act and the intention, has to be presumed against the accused, until the contrary is proved; since the accused did not rebut the evidence of the prosecution, it is right on the part of the Trial Court to convict the accused.
7. The point for consideration is:
(i)Whether the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sec.367, 346, 324 IPC on the basis of the materials available on the record is fair and proper?
(ii)Whether the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the basis of the materials available on the record is fair and proper Page 9 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 and within the ambit of Sec.29 & 40 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act?
8. The victim boy is said to have some psychiatric issues. His father PW.1 has given the complaint for boy missing, since the victim did not return home. The mother of the boy who was examined as PW.3 has stated in her evidence that the victim boy did not suffer from any serious mental health issues, though he has some psychiatric issues. She has further stated in her evidence that the victim boy is smart in studies.
9. The above evidence of PW.3 would show that the victim boy did not suffer from any serious mental health condition, though he was having some psychiatric issues. As the boy did not return from his grandmother’s house on the next day, PW.1 went in search of him in several places. Since the victim boy was in the habit of going to his friend’s house and stay there for few days, PW.1 was searching the boy in his friend’s houses and only on 24.11.2016 he gave a complaint. After the boy returned home on 28.11.2016, he narrated to his father what had happened after he alighted from the bus at Erode bus stand.
10. The victim boy who was examined as PW.2 has given a detailed account of what had happened after he left his house and reached his grandmother’s house on Page 10 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 17.11.2016. He has stated is his evidence that on 18.11.2016, his grandmother sent him off in a bus and he got down at Erode bus stand to pass urine behind the bus. The accused who came in a bike accosted the victim boy and convinced him that he would leave him at his house in his bike. Believing his words the victim boy went with him. His evidence is clear as to how he was taken by the accused in a different route to Otthamethai and kept him in a house there for one week and committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on him. At the time when the boy was examined in Court he was 14 years old and he was able to comprehend the questions posed to him by the learned Sessions Judge and talk coherently. The learned Sessions Judge was also satisfied with the preliminary examination and found that the victim boy was fit enough to depose his evidence.
11. The following evidence of PW.2 would show that the victim boy did not have any confusion while he was deposing evidence and his evidence is cogent and clear:
“ehd; te;J "hapj;Jf;fpHik 17Mk; njjp 11Mk; khrk;. 2016 md;idf;F v';f mg;gh tPl;oypUe;J vd; ghl;o tPl;Lf;F bghd;dp efUf;F nghndd;. m';f nghapl;L m';fpUe;J mLj;j ehs; jp';fl;fpHik 18k; njjp 11k; khrk;. 2016 Mk; njjp !;TYf;F g[wg;gl;nld;. vd; ghl;o bghd;dp efhpypUe;J g!;rpy; Vj;jp tpl;lh';f/ ehd; <nuhL g!; !;nlz;L te;J ,w';fp gpd;g[wk; brd;W a{hpd; nghapl;L ,Ud;njd;/ mg;ngh jpiur;rPiyf;F cs;ns ,Uf;fpw Fkhu; vd;fpw Fknurd; m';f igf;fpy; te;jhu;/ vd; ngiuf; nfl;lhh;/ ehd; vd; bgau; $p!;Dd;D brhd;ndd;/ v';flh nghw vd;W nfl;lhh;/ Page 11 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 mJf;F ehd; R{uk;gl;o tyRf;F nghnwd;D brhd;ndd;/ v';flh nghw vd;W nfl;lhh;/ mJf;F mz;zh ehDk; R{uk;gl;o tyR jhd; nghnwd;/ tz;oapy Vwp cl;fhh;e;Jfpl;nld;/ gs;spghisaj;J tHpah nghdhh;/ ,e;j tHpah Vd; nghwP';f mg;god;D nfl;nld;/ mJf;F me;j mz;zd; ngrhk thlh ,y;iyd;dh fGj;ij mWj;J gs;spghisak; Mj;Jy nghl;LUntd; mg;god;D kpul;odhh;/ ehd; mJf;F gae;Jfpl;L tz;oapny cl;fhu;e;Jfpl;nld;/ nryk; nghw UPl;Ly xl;l bkj;ij vd;fpw CUy xU ut[z;lhdh Rj;jp ngf;fhp re;Jy nghdhU/ xU tPl;ow;F vd;id Tl;og; ngha; milr;R itr;Rl;lhU/ vd;id mor;R rhg;ghl;L fhy;y (rhl;rp jdJ tyJ fhiy fhz;pf;fpwhh;) for;R vd; KJFy ,Uk;g[ fk;gpahy mor;rhu;/ kz;ilapny ifahy bfhl;odhh;/ ifahy vd; clk;g[ g{uh mor;rhh;/ vd;Dila rl;il vy;yhk; mt[j;J mth; rl;ila[k; mt[j;J mth; rl;ila[k; mt[j;J mth; F";ira[k; vLj;J vd; thapy; itr;rhu;/ rg;g brhd;dhh;/ ehd; KoahJ vd;W jiyia Ml;ondd;. mJf;F vd;id mor;rhU/ ehd; mth; F";ir rg;gpndd;/ mth; F";ir vLj;J vd; gpd;dhy R{j;Jy itr;R mGj;jpdhU/ vd; F";Rfpl;l mth; F";ir itr;R mGj;jpdhU/ xU gj;J ehs; bla;yp ,g;go jhd; br";rhh;/ xU ehs; btspapy; ngha; nghd; ngrpl;oUe;jhU/ me;j neuk; ehd; ghh;j;J igf; rhtpia vLj;J J}f;fp nghl;Ll;L Xo nru; Ml;nlh gpd;dho bjhj;jp tPl;Lf;F te;Jl;nld;/ v';f mg;gh mk;kh Vz;lh ,j;jid ehs; tuy vd;W nfl;L mGjh';f/ mJf;F ehd; vd;ndhl mg;gh mk;khfpl;l vd;id vd;id Fkhh; vd;fpw Fknurd; mz;zd; te;J flj;jp tr;rpUe;jh';f/ mth; F";ir vLj;J vd; thahy rg;g brhd;dh';f/ mth; F";ir vLj;J vd; R{j;Jf;F gpd;dhy tr;R mGj;jpdhU/ vd;Dila F";Rfpl;l tr;R mth; F";ir mGj;jpdhU/ vd;id mor;rhU. kz;ilapy bfhl;odhU. ,Uk;g[ fk;gpahy KJFy mor;rhU. nrhj;jh';fhypy; for;rhh;. vd;id cf;fhu itr;rpUe;jhh;/ mth; nghd; ngrpl;oUe;jg;ngh ehd; jg;gpr;R te;Jl;nld;D vd; mg;gh mk;khfpl;l brhy;ypl;nld;/ vd;ndhl mg;gh rj;jpuk; nghyp!; !;nlrDf;F vd;id Tl;ol;L nghdhU/ ehd;. vd; mg;gh. vd; mk;kh nghndhk;/ vd;id nghyp!;fhu';f tprhupr;rh';f/ vd;ndhl mg;gh fk;g;sa;d;l; gz;zp vd;id xU nghyp!;fhuh; <nuhL $p/vr;=f;F Tl;ofpl;L nghdhU/ m';F !;nfd; vLj;jh';f/ vd;id tPl;Lf;F mDg;gpr;rpl;lh';f/ mJf;fg;g[wk; bfh";r ehs; fHpr;R nghyp!;fhuh; te;J kWgoa[k; Tg;g[l;L fbyf;lh; MgP!; gf;fj;jpy; cs;s nfhh;l;Lf;F Tl;ol;L ngha; 3Mk; bek;gh; nfhh;l;Lf;F Tl;ol;L nghdhh;/ vy;nyhUk; nghd gpwF vd;id $l;$; ma;ah tprhhpr;rhh;/ ehd; mthplk; ele;jij vy;yhk; brhd;ndd;/ $l;$; ma;ah ehd; brhd;dij gr;ir fyh; ngdhtpy; vGjpdhh;/ ehd; gor;R ghh;j;J ifbaGj;J nghl;nld;” Page 12 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
12. His cross examination also did not demolish the fact spoken by him in his chief-examination. The parents of the victim boy who have been examined as PW.1 and PW.3 have also corroborated about the events that had preceded and followed the occurrence. Being the parents of the victim boy it is quite natural for them to enquire the victim. It is equally natural for the victim boy also to narrate the occurrence to his parents without any hesitation.
13. Since PW.1 had already given a complaint for boy missing, after he returned and told about the occurrence, he took the victim boy to the police station and he was enquired by the police. After sometime the victim boy was taken to the Court for giving 164 Cr.P.C. statement. In his 164 statement also he had stated the occurrence in a similar manner. The consistency in his evidence and his previous statement would show that the victim boy is speaking about something that had happened really. He was taken by the accused to a strange place, where he was confined and sexually abused by the accused. The evidence of the victim boy as to how he escaped from the accused is also something believable.
14. Neither the victim boy nor the parents had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case and that to on the allegations that he had committed Page 13 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 repeated penetrative sexual assault on the victim boy. In sexual offences, the evidence of the victim alone is sufficient to convict the accused. Since the offence will not happen in the public view the evidence of the victim deserves best weightage. The evidence of the victim is like that of an injured witness and hence, the Court cannot reject the victims’ testimony unless it was motivated or exaggerated.
15. As per Sec. 29-30 of the POCSO Act whenever a person is charged for the offence of the Sec.6 of the POCSO Act the initial presumption as to the commission of the offence and the intention to commit the same will be in favour of the prosecution. The burden is only on the accused to prove the contrary. If the evidence of the victim is solid and unrebutted and has the quality to convince the Court, there is no harm in accepting the evidence of the victim as true. No doubt the evidence of child witnesses should be scrutinized with due care because of their tender age and understanding. The learned trial Judge has interacted with the boy by putting some formal questions and convinced himself about the maturity of the child to depose his evidence.
Page 14 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
16. Once the Court is convinced that the evidence of the victim is acceptable it is not always necessary to look for corroborative evidence. Since the accused has got the reverse burden to prove his innocence, it is the duty of the accused to rebut the evidence of the victim through the contrary evidence. Time and again it has been held in the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the victim stands on a higher pedestal and his /her evidence cannot be taken so lightly. It is worthwhile to reiterate the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in State of Himachala pradesh Vs. Sanjai kumar reported in 2017 (2) SCC page 551. In the said judgment the hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who Page 15 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance {See Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh(2003)8SCC 551). Notwithstanding this legal position, in the instant case, we even find enough corroborative material as well, which is discussed hereinabove.”(Emphasis supplied)….”
17. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution and that should have been taken as a rebutting circumstance. The doctor who examined the accused has given a clear chit as to the potency of the accused. The doctor has stated that there is nothing suggestive to opine that he is an impotent.
18. The doctor who had examined the victim boy has been examined as PW.8. The entire evidence of this doctor would show that the doctor did not follow any guidelines of the State or Central on the subject of medical examinations of the victim children. The doctor did not even enquire the child about the history. The victim boy was examined in a very causal manner and the examination was not done as per the guidelines of the State.
19. However it is relevant to note that the doctor has noticed bite marks on the right leg of the victim child in Ex.P11 medical certificate, when he examined the Page 16 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 victim child on 28.11.2016. The victim boy returned home on the said date and he was subjected to the medical examination on the same day. The presence of the bite marks on the leg of the victim which are marked by the doctor as Ex.P.11, would show that he was assaulted by the accused whenever he did not cooperate for his sexual desires. Though the doctor has stated that he did not notice any injuries on the anal region, he had stated that he did not know whether the child was referred to any specialized doctor for get the tests done on his anal region in order to find out injuries present inside the anal channel. Even in the absence of any medical evidence, if the oral testimony of the victim itself is of a stellar quality, especially in the absence of any motive against the accused, it can be relied on.
20. The age of the victim boy is not in dispute. The cumulative effect of the evidence of the victim child and other incidental circumstances revealed by his parents along with the bite marks on the body of the victim boy, would sufficiently prove that the boy was subjected to repeated penetrative sexual assault. The accused is a stranger and he was not known to the victim before the occurrence. The accused made the child to believe that he would drop him at his house and then abducted him to a strange location, where he confined the child and Page 17 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 committed the offence. The bite marks on the body of the victim boy and his oral testimony proved that the accused had caused hurt on the body of the victim his teeth and his hands. Hence the learned Sessions Judge is right in convicting the accused for the offences under sec. 324 IPC also along with 367, 346 IPC and Sec.6 of the POCSO Act. And thus, the points taken for consideration are answered against the appellant and the judgement of the Sessions Judge upheld
21. The victim boy was a school going child and he was in 7 th standard at the time of the offence. He is said to have got some psychiatric issue though he was studious in studies. After he was missing, his parents got perturbed and went in search of him in several places. It is obvious that the boy wouldn't have attended the school when he was kept under the confinement by the accused and sometime thereafter when his parents were pursuing this case. After the boy came and told about the occurrence, no doubt the agony of his parents would have got doubled. The boy was beaten by the accused whenever he cried out of tear. The bite marks which was found on the legs of the victim boy would show that he was subjected to physical harassment as well. To a boy of his age such kind of sexual abuse at the hands of the accused would be a traumatic and shocking experience. And it would also leave a mark on his mind when he grows as an adult. Page 18 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018
22. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned trial Judge should have granted an appropriate compensation. In fact under the “Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012” itself prescribes the minimum compensation that should be paid to the victim child, for being a victim of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is Rs. 5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs only]. Hence, we prefer to enhance the final compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs only] direct the State Government of Tamil Nadu to pay disburse it from the “Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012” or any other Fund maintained by the State Government within 30 days. (in compliance of Rule 7 of POCSO Act Rules 2012). The interim compensation if any already paid to the victim is eligible for deduction from the final compensation. In the above said amount awarded as compensation, 25% of the said sum shall be paid to the father of the victim in cash and the remaining 75% shall be put in the name of the child in a fixed Deposit for 3 years or until he attains majority, whichever is later. Page 19 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 In the result the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed in Special Case No.14 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimanram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode is confirmed.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.N.M, J.) 08.10.2021 Jrs Internet: Yes/No To 1 The Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimanram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
3. The Inspector of Police Erode North Police Station.
Erode District
4. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
5.The Director, Directorate of Social Defence, No.300, Purasaivakkam High Road, Kilpack, Chennai-600 010.
Page 20 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 P.N. PRAKASH, J.
and R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs Pre-delivery judgment made in Crl.A. No.261 of 2018 08.10.2021 Page 21 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/