Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,] Appellant, arrayed as A-3 in the Charge Sheet, was tried separately in Spl.SC.No.9/2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Court, Erode, for offences u/s.366 IPC and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short POCSO Act] read with section 506[ii] IPC. The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 23.06.2017, acquitted the appellant/accused of the sections u/s.366 and 506[ii] IPC and found him guilty of offence u/s.4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default sentence of 2 years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.

[q] P.W.22, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of her investigation, examined the witnesses ; recorded their statements ; collected various documents relating to the case including the Medical Reports and on completion of investigation, filed the Final Report u/s.366 and 506[ii] IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act against Sembulingam and the appellant/accused and u/s.366 and 506[ii] IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act against Murugesan @ Murugan and Vijayakumar, before the Trial Court.

[r] Though the prosecution has filed charge sheet against four persons for different occurrences, allegedly committed as against the victim-P.W.2, each accused were tried separately by the Trial Court after splitting of the cases and the case, insofar as the appellant/accused is concerned, was tried in SC.NO.9/2017. The Trial court issued summons to the appellant/accused and on his appearance, furnished him the copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and framed the charges as stated above and questioned him. The appellant / accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him.

[v] The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has acquitted the appellant/accused of the offences u/s.366 and 506[ii] IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for the offence u/s.4 of POCSO Act, 2012, and hence, this appeal.

3 Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:-

The entire prosecution case is doubtful and the appellant/accused and other accused were made as scapegoats and they were falsely implicated, due to personal motive of one Backiyalakshmi, grandmother of the victim-P.W.2.

5 We have perused the entire materials and evidence on record.

6 In the light of the above submissions, we have to analyse whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

7 The appellant/accused faced trial for the offences u/s.366 and 506[ii] IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The specific charge against the appellant/accused framed by the Trial Court is as follows:-

nkw;fz;l 1 MtJ Fw;wr;rhl;oy; fz;l Fw;wr; bra;ifiaj; bjhlh;e;J 08/09/2016 md;W ckJ kfs; mRtjpa[ld; tpisahLtjw;fhf FHe;ij fdpbkhHpia miHj;J te;jpUe;jbghGJ. ckJ kfs; mRtjp ghj;U:k; brd;w neuj;jpy;. ePh; FHe;ij fdpbkhHpaplk; jg;g[ bra;ayhk; vd;W nfl;Ls;sPh;/ mjw;F FHe;ij fdpbkhHp bra;af;TlhJ vd;W brhy;ypa[s;shh;/ mjw;F ePh;. mg;goj;jhd; bra;ntd; vd;W brhy;yp FHe;ij fdpbkhHpia fPnH js;sp gLf;f itj;jnghJ. fj;j Kad;w FHe;ij fdpbkhHpapd; thia Jzpia itj;J milj;J. mtuJ khh;ig frf;fp. Rojhh; ngz;il fHw;wp vwpe;Jtpl;L. FHe;ij fdpbkhHpapd; kPJ gLj;J. MtuJ bgz; cWg;gpy; ckJ Mz; cWg;ig itj;J mGj;jp. mtuJ tpUg;gj;jpw;F khwhf ghypay; cs;EiHj;jy; bra;Js;sPh;/ mjd; gpd;dUk; FHe;ij fdpbkhHpapd; tPl;ow;F gpd;dhy; itj;J. 2 Kiw mtUld; ghypay; cs;EiHj;jypy; s;sPh;/ mjd; K:yk; ePh; gphpt[ 6 ghypay; Fw;w';fspypUe;J FHe;ijfis ghJfhf;Fk; rl;lk; 2012 ,d; fPH; jz;of;fj;jf;fJk; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tprhhpf;fj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wj;ij g[hpe;Js;sjhft[k;. 8 It is the specific charge of the prosecution that on 08.09.2016 while P.W.2-victim girl was playing with D.W.1, the appellant/accused called the minor girl and sexually abused her. P.W.2, referred to as Y, in her evidence before the Court, had stated that her age is 14 years and she has narrated several incidents and once such incident is, while the victim was playing with D.W.1-daughter of the appellant/accused, D.W.1 left for washroom and at that time, the appellant/accused had abused her by placing his private part over the private part of P.W.2 and pressed her chest. Though P.W.2 is aged 14 years, she has not mentioned the date on which the alleged occurrence took place. But her evidence, when considered along with other materials, shows it clear that she attained puberty in the year 2016. The law was set in motion under Ex.P.1, lodged by P.W.1. P.W.1 claims to be a relative of P.W.2. According to P.W.1, she took P.W.2 to her house during Quarterly Holidays and P.W.2 narrated the sexual abuse made by four persons, viz., Sembulingam, aged 66 years ; Sivakumar @ Ramesh, aged 41 years [the appellant/accused herein] ; Vijayakumar, aged 34 years ; and Murugesan @ Murugan, aged 31 years. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 23.09.2016, she was informed by P.W.2 about the alleged sexual abuse But, P.W.1 did not lodge a complaint immediately to the police. Whereas, the complaint came to be filed only on 25.09.2016. The conduct of P.W.1 in not rushing to the police station immediately, after hearing of the serious sexual abuse meted out by P.W.2, creates some doubt about the origin of the occurrence itself. This doubt is further fortified by the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W.22. In cross, P.W.22 had categorically admitted that P.W.1-Meenachi ; and P.W.17-Vijayakumar came to know about the alleged occurrence on 20.09.2016 itself. Similarly, one Mageswari and her husband Santhanam also claimed to have become aware of the alleged occurrence on 20.09.2016. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is crystal clear that the fact of P.W.1 becoming aware of the alleged occurrence only on 23.09.2016, as evidenced from her evidence, falls to ground and it throws considerable doubt on the evidence of P.W.1. But, Ex.P.1-First Information came to be to lodged only on 26.09.2016. This also, once again cause a serious doubt about the genesis of the occurrence.