Madras High Court
M.Murali vs State Rep.By on 25 October, 2021
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.09.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
M.Murali .. Appellant
.Vs.
1.State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Ponneri,
Thiruvallur District.
(Crime No.5 of 2016)
2. The District Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
3. Srinivasan .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the order of acquittal/Judgment dated 28.03.2019
passed in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Sessions
Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District and convict the 3rd
respondent for all the charges.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1/29
Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.Mahaveer Shivaji
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1 & R2
Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
for R3
JUDGMENT
This Criminal appeal is filed by the de facto complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District.
2.The first respondent police registered a case against the 3rd respondent/accused herein in Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC and Sections 9 (f), 9(m), 9(k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [ hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After completing the investigation, they have filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvallur, since the offence is against a girl child. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.27 of http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.2/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 2017 and charges were framed against the 3rd respondent for the offence under Sections 342, 354(A)(1)(i), 376 (1) (f) (i) IPC and Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 6, 7 punishable under Section 8, 9(f), (k) and
(m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
3.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and no material object was produced. After examining the prosecution witnesses when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused through questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.
4.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found the 3rd respondent not guilty for the all charged offences and acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the said Judgment of acquittal, http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.3/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 the appellant, who is the de-facto complainant has filed the present appeal before this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant/defacto complainant would submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim was only 11 years and she is a mentally retarded and physically challenged (deaf and dumb) child and she was studying fifth standard in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Kanniyampalayam, in which, the 3rd respondent/accused was working as a Teacher. On 20.10.2016 around 15.00 hours, while the students were permitted to go for playing, the victim being a physically challenged, stayed alone in the class room. The accused took advantage of the loneliness of the victim child and had committed sexual assault on her. On the next day, when the mother of the victim sent her to school, the victim nodded her head and refused to go to school and started weeping and that she asked the victim girl by sign language, she showed her breast and also the private part. The same was informed to her father when he returned from his job. Immediately, he went to the school and enquired about the said incident committed by 3rd respondent/accused, who was the teacher in the school.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.4/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
6. The learned counsel would further submit that in the present case, the victim girl conveyed the said incident by way of sign language to her mother, who in turn, informed the same to her husband and he made a complaint before the respondent police. After registration of the complaint, the victim and her mother were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Since the victim is a deaf and dumb and also a physically challenged child and she was not in a position to give any verbal answer, her mother's/P.W.3 statement was under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate, the victim child and her mother have clearly conveyed the said incident that the accused who is a Teacher in the said school touched private parts of the victim child and hence, she refused to go to school and she informed the same to her mother by sign language, which was confirmed by Specially Trained Teacher. Further P.Ws.2 and 3 who are father and mother of the victim girl have known the sign language and they have clearly narrated the said incident. However the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the entire evidence and disallowed the evidence of the victim girl and acquitted the 3rdresponded/accused from the charged offences, since the victim is not http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.5/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 in a position to give verbal statement, which warrants interference of this Court.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the appellant, who is the father of the victim child had preferred complaint before the first respondent police and they registered the case against 3rd respondent/accused. He would submit that when the victim was examined as P.W.1, she narrated the incident by way of sign language, in the presence of Specially Trained Teacher. P.W.3/mother of the victim child also knows the sign language and that she translated the sings shown by her child. Even assuming that the victim child is a mentally retarded person and not studied in a Special School and not undergone any special training, it does not mean that the Special Teacher could not understand the signs of the victim child. However, the trial court came to the conclusion that the evidence of the mother of the victim child could not be accepted and since the victim is not conversant with sign language and she was not studied in the Special School for deaf and dumb children, the evidence of the Specially Trained teacher/P.W.12 also not accepted. Further, the http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.6/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the entire evidence in the right perception and acquitted the accused on the ground that the victim was unable to speak, which warrants interference of this Court.
8.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/accused would submit that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate on 08.11.2016 with the assistance of Selvi Mahalakshmi, Periakuppam, Thiruvallur, who is working as a Special Educator of deaf and dumb school, is not the statement of the victim child, it is only the statement of P.W.3/mother of the victim. As such, the statement of victim was not recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate with any verbal communication. Further, he would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the victim child is not a competent witness to give a statement and therefore, proceeded to record the statement of the mother of the victim child. Moreover, the prosecution having understood the said lacuna, restrained itself from examining the translator Selvi.Mahalakshmi and the said Mahalakshmi one who translated the sign language of the victim, was not examined as one of the witnesses. Therefore, the statement of P.W.3 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.7/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 not admissible. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the previous statement of P.W.3 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Further he would submit that the occurrence has taken place on 20.10.2016 at about 15.00 hours, whereas, the complaint was filed only on 24.10.2016 at about 15.00 hours, thereafter, they registered First Information Report/Ex.P.6. There is no proper explanation for delay in preferring the complaint and also delay in sending the FIR to the Court, which itself creates a doubt.
8.1 In support of the contention the learned counsel for 3rd respondent/accused, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marudanal Augsti Vs State of Kerala reported in 1960 SCC (Crl.) 985 and also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendiran and two others Vs. State represented by Pabanasam Police Station reported in 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 199 and submitted that the inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and delay in despatching the FIR is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.8/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 8.2 He would further submit that during trial the father of the victim child/P.W.2, in his evidence, has deposed that on the next day of occurrence i.e. on 21.10.2016, when he finished his work and returned home, he found his daughter was present in the house. When he questioned, she nodded her head down towards her breasts, immediately, he went to the school and searched for the accused. However, the accused was not present in the school and he came to school only after three days. Thereafter, P.W.2 and others caught hold the accused and informed the said incident to the police and registered the complaint. The accused was present in the school on Friday i.e. 21.10.2016, but, during the cross examination P.W.2 has deposed that he did not know as to whether the accused was attended the Scool on Friday, which creates a doubt in the evidence of P.W.2 during his chief and cross examination.
8.3 The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/accused would further submit that P.W.3/mother of the victim child has stated that one Thursday her daughter make signs that a person having tuft has assaulted her and he also threatened her not to shout and when other students came to the spot, the accused shouted at them to go go. Immediately, P.W.3 enquired about with the noon meal organizer one Kalyani and she told http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.9/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 her that the accused is not of such a character. Thereafter, she informed the said incident to her husband. The evidence of P.W.3/mother of the victim made clear that P.W.2/father of the victim girl has knowledge about the occurrence on 20.10.2016 itself. The evidence of P.W.3 made clear that as per the suggestion of the Doctor at Ponneri, the victim girl was produced before the Institute of Mental Health at Ayanavaram. However, the prosecution has not filed a diagnosis report issued by the Institute of Mental health. During cross examination P.W.3/mother of the victim girl has clearly deposed that the alleged occurrence taken place on one Wednesday and was not enquired about the said incident in the school on the following Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Further she has deposed that they have not enquired the victim in the presence of the accused. The accused was not properly identified by the victim girl. The mother of the victim in her evidence made it clear that the victim girl does not know even to say their names and she could only 'Amma and Appa'. P.W.2/father of the victim under the pressure of the villagers, on the issue of filling up the vacancy for the post of Physical Education Teacher in the said school, has preferred a false complaint against the accused by using the name of his own daughter/P.W.1. http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.10/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 8.4 The learned counsel for the third respondent/accused would further submit that one of the important witnesses viz., Kalyani who was examined as P.W.4 clearly deposed that she does not know anything about the occurrence, which is said to have taken place as alleged by the prosecution and she turned hostile during trial. Further, P.W.5 to P.W.7 also not supported the case of the prosecution and they have also turned hostile.
8.5 P.W.8 has deposed that P.W.2 is her paternal uncle and she stayed at his home. The victim girl made signs that she will not go to school continuously for two days and on the third day, she was sent to school. On that day evening her grand mother gave bath to the victim girl at that time, both of them saw contusion on the breast and vagina of the victim child. Thereafter P.W.3 and the mother P.W.8 saw the contusion and on questioning the victim girl, she made signs that she was assaulted by a person having tuft on his head. P.W.9 in her evidence has clearly deposed that one year back P.W.2 informed her about the occurrence and that she immediately came to the house of P.W.2. She further deposed that her mother one Vasuki @ Angammal has only enquired the victim http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.11/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 girl and has given information about the occurrence. However, during cross examination P.W9 has clearly deposed that both P.W.8 and P.W.9 have jointly visited Kanniyapalayam Village and hence, the evidence of P.W.9 creates a doubt about the occurrence. Further, P.W.12/Headmistress of Special School for deaf and dumb has deposed that the victim girl has not named the accused and P.W.12 has not clearly deposed that whether date of occurrence took place in a holiday or in a working day. The victim girl was produced before P.W.12 only on 20.10.2016 and she only translated the statement of the victim girl to the first respondent police. Even before recording the statement of the victim the first respondent police has altered the section of law which is not at all admissible.
8.6 The learned counsel for the third respondent/accused would further submit that the victim child also has not identified the accused. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused and he was not found guilty for the charged offence. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.12/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/accused and perused the materials placed on record carefully.
10.The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant/ appellant herein is that the victim child is his daughter, who is aged about 11 years and her date of birth is 31.07.2006 and she was studying 5th standard in Panchayat Union Primary School Kanniyampalayam Village, at the time of occurrence. The victim girl is mentally and physically disabled child. The third respondent/accused is working as a Teacher in the said school. On 20.10.2016 around 15.00 hours the students in the school had gone to play ground for playing and the victim girl remained sat in the class room alone and the accused being a class teacher took advantage of loneliness of the child, lifted her and made her to sit in a chair and squeezing her breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina and he applied his mouth to her vagina against her will. At the time of the offence committed by the accused, the victim was of unsound mind. The accused, being a Teacher, has committed the said offence and http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.13/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 at the time of occurrence the victim girl was below 12 years and therefore, it is termed as aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Hence, P.W.2/father of the victim girl filed the complaint against 3rd respondent and laid charge sheet before the Court below. The trial Court, framed charges as stated above against the 3rd respondent. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, on the side of the prosecution totally 17 witness were examined and marked 10 documents.
11.Out of 17 witnesses, the victim girl was examined as P.W.1. P.W.3/mother of the victim girl has clearly deposed about the said incident, which was indicated through sign language by victim/P.W.1; P.W.2/father of the victim has clearly deposed about the complaint given against the 3rd respondent/accused; P.W.15/ Doctor who examined the victim girl has deposed that during medical examination of the victim girl, the victim child has stated about the sexual assault made by the accused through sign language and she has issued Ex.P5/Sexual offence certificate of the victim girl; and P.W.17/Investigating officer has clearly deposed about the investigation and examination of the witness relating to the said occurrence.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.14/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
12.On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it would reveal that the victim girl is a mentally retarded and physically challenged person and she explained the said incident by way of sign language to her mother and her mother, who was examined as P.W.3 before the Court, has translated the same, which was, corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12/Specially Trained Teacher. P.W.15/Doctor has stated that on the request of the Inspector of Police she examined the victim girl on 28.10.2016, by way of sign the victim girl shown that her teacher kept his hands on her private parts. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1/victim, P.W.3/mother of victim and P.W.15/Doctor, the prosecution has clearly established that the third respondent/accused committed sexual assault on the victim girl.
13.At the time of recording the said statement, the victim girl and her mother and also one A.Mahalakshmi, who is the Special Educator of deaf and dumb school were present before the Judicial Magistrate. Since the victim girl is a deaf and dumb child, with the assistance of the Special Educator the proceedings were video-graphed. In the said statement, the mother of the victim girl has stated that she told the Magistrate what was http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.15/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 told by her daughter by way of signs and she stated that on the date of occurrence the teacher, who is having tuft has bitten both of her breast and put his thumb in her private part. Hence, they have informed the village elders and demanded for the termination of the accused from the school.
14.Even though, the Mahalakshmi, who aided the Magistrate at the time of recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has not been examined as witness, it is seen that at the end of the statement the Special Educator Mahalakshmi has stated that she has attended the Judicial Magistrate Court on 08.11.2016 to assist the victim girl who is deaf and dumb and she also signed on the same.
15.In the present case, on going through the cross examination of P.W.1, it reveals that the suggestion was put before the victim child that since she is a mentally retarded child, the third respondent/accused causally helped her but she misunderstood the act of the third respondent, and the same was clearly denied by the victim child. It is not in dispute that the victim did attend the school on the date of occurrence and she http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.16/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 was studying 5th standard in that school and the 3rd respondent is working as a Teacher in that school and in fact the appellant admitted that he knows victim child and he only took a defence that he casually helped the victim child. Therefore it cannot said that the victim has not identified the 3rd respondent/accused. Even in the chief examination, the victim by way of sign has clearly identified the 3rd respondent/accused and also shown in sign that when she was alone in the class room the accused touched her breasts and she also informed the same to her mother/P.W.3. Therefore the victim girl understood the incident though she is a mentally retarded person and deaf and dumb, she also has feelings and she understood the things. She conveyed the same through sign.
16.Even though it is pointed out by the trial judge that the victim girl did not attend any special school and has not undergone any special training. However the victim is 10 years old and her mother used to talk with the victim everyday in her own language of signing and the victim also used to communicate with her mother in her own language. Even the Doctor/P.W.15 who examined the victim girl clinically has clearly stated that a Teacher in her school touched her breasts and also private part. http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.17/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 Therefore Doctor is able to understand the signs of the victim girl and likewise victim's mother also understood the signs of the victim.
17.It is seen from the evidence of the P.Ws.2 & 3 that subsequent to the occurrence, while P.W.3 insisted the victim child to go to school , the victim girl refused and she was reluctant to go to school. Her mother understood that victim's behaviour is abnormal and different. Therefore she enquired the victim girl and the victim child by signing has clearly stated that the teacher/3rd respondent misbehaved with her, therefore she refused to go to school. Therefore her mother understood the feelings of the child/victim and informed about the same to her husband/P.W.2. P.W.2 lodged the complaint before the first respondent police. Subsequently during the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the victim, her mother/P.W.3 and the special teacher(Mahalakshmi) were present. The victim child informed about the occurrence to the trial Judge by sign, however the trial Judge acquitted the 3rd respondent/accused on the ground that the specially trained teacher Mahalakshmi was not examined in this case and the victim was deaf and dumb and observed that the victim child could not speak about http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.18/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 the occurrence and not identified 3rd respondent/accused. But it is relevant to the note that the victim was examined by Judicial Magistrate while recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Therefore the non examination of the specially trained teacher cannot be considered as a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution, since she has signed in the end of the statement.
18.The contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent/accused that there is delay in lodging complaint is not acceptable. In the cases of this nature, we cannot expect the victim or family members of the victim to rush to Police Station immediately after the occurrence. The victim girl is a mentally retarded and also physically challenged child and one cannot expect the such child to speak about the offence committed by the accused immediately soon after the occurrence to any one.
19.It is observed by the trial Court that the victim is not in a position to speak about the act of the accused verbally. According to this Court, the trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of the victim http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.19/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 child, who is a mentally retarded and physically challenged. Even though, the victim child is mentally retarded, she is also having her own feelings and own language. P.W.15/Doctor clearly stated that while conducting medical examination as a medical officer, she understood the language of the victim who by way of signs communicated the incident. The mother of the victim/P.W.3 also understood the sign language of the victim, since she knows her from her childhood and used to communicate with each other on their own way. Though the victim girl is not able to speak verbally and communicate, however it is not necessary that the communication should be in verbal but it can also be through any mode.
20.The victim is aged about only below 12 years. There is no dispute regarding the age of the victim. Prosecution proved the age of the prosecutrix and defence has not disputed the age of the victim. Doctor also mentioned that the age of the victim is only 10 years and she was studying 5th standard. Ex.P.10/Bonafide certificate issued by the school authority clearly shows that she was studying 5th standard during academic year 2017-2018. From the above evidence, this court clearly http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.20/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 presumed the age of the victim between 10 and 11, which is below the age of 12 and hence the offence committed by the accused would fall under the aggravated sexual assault.
21.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.15 it is clear that the 3rd respondent/accused touched breasts of the victim and also her vagina. The victim girl clearly stated about the offence committed by the accused to her mother/P.W.3 and she also understood the same and deposed the same before the Court. P.W.15/Doctor also understood the language of the victim and deposed before the Court that the victim has stated that her teacher sexually abused her. Though there is no verbal communication, the communication by sign is very much understood by the Doctor and mother of the victim child also and the learned trial Judge also should have appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.15.
22.Therefore mere non examination of specially trained teacher and the victim girl not studied in the special school is not a valid reason to disbelieve the evidence of the victim and her mother. As already stated P.W.3/mother is living with victim child for the past 10 years and fulfill http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.21/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 her needs and hence she is having effective communication with the victim child. Though victim is a mentally retarded, deaf and dumb child, poor mother sent the pathetic child to the school and the appellant/father of the victim child used to drop the child at School and take her back to the home. The victim, even though not communicated the offence committed by the third respondent/accused verbally, but, identified and narrated the act of the accused by sign. The victim effectively communicated the same to her mother as well as doctor. Statement of P.W.3 the mother of the victim child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded and she was also examined before the Court. It is seen that in all the stages P.W.3 has clearly reiterated the offence committed by the accused as stated by her daughter, the victim child by sign. Therefore from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.15, this court finds that the 3rdrespondent/accused committed offence under Section 9 (f), 9(k) and 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
23.The trial Courts, who are dealing the cases under the POCSO Act, are sometimes not applying their minds and searching for proof beyond doubt and taking advantage of the flaw in the investigation, http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.22/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. But cases like this, we cannot give much importance to the technical ground of proof. In this case, the victim is a mentally retarded and physically challenged and also deaf and dumb, aged below 12 years, she is not in a position to speak out the harassment or assault or atrocities, under such circumstances, the mother has clearly spoken and no corroboration can be expected, since because the inability of the victim child, the culprit cannot be escaped from the clutches of law.
24.Now, this Court has come to the conclusion that the third respondent / accused has committed the offence of aggravated sexual assault comes under Section 9(f), (k) & (m) which are punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Since the Special Act has overriding effect on the general law, no separate conviction recorded for the offence under IPC.
25.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District, is hereby set aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.23/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021
26.Since it is a reversal judgment, it is necessary to direct the third respondent / accused to appear before this Court for asking question of sentence to be imposed on him. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to appear before this Court on 28.10.2021.
25.10.2021 cgi/pbl Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.24/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 To
1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.
3. The District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.25/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
pbl Pre-Delivery Judgement in CRL.A.No.358 of 2021 25.10.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.26/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
Today, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 25.10.2021, the 3rd respondent appeared before this Court and he has been questioned regarding the sentence to be imposed on him. The 3rd respondent stated that he never committed the offence as projected by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against him and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and got two female children and prays mercy of this Court.
2 This Court heard the 3rd respondent/accused and his submission is not acceptable since, the victim has clearly stated about the offence committed by the 3rd respondent/accused.
Considering the representations made by the 3rd respondent/accused and the age of the victim child and the offence committed, which is grave in nature and also the fact that the 3rd respondent has committed the offence in the School itself, while working as Teacher, there is no mitigating circumstances to award lesser punishment. The 3rd respondent is convicted for the offence under Sections 9(f), (k) and (m) which are punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.27/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months, which would meet the ends of justice.
28.10.2021 Note :
(i) Registry is directed to issue copy of the judgment by today itself (i.e, on 28.10.2021).
(ii) Appellant/Police is directed to secure the custody of the 3rd respondent to execute the period of imprisonment.
Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal. http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.28/29 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ksa-2 Crl.A.No.358 of 2021 28.10.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.29/29