Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is stated that PW1 attained puberty two years prior to the date of occurrence. While so, three months prior to the occurrence, when PW1 was alone in the house, the accused misbehaved with his own daughter by pulling her hands and pressed her breasts under the influence of alcohol. This was complained by PW1 to PW2, mother. PW2 therefore questioned the accused and quarrelled with him. When the accused was confronted by PW2 as to why he had indulged in such acts with his own daughter, the accused threatened PW2 with a knife not to disclose it to any one, failing which he will kill Pws 1 to 3. After this incident, it is stated that PW2 stayed in the night in the house of her junior grand mother situated opposite to their house and PW1 was made to stay in the house of her aunt nearby. While so, on 30.05.2015, when PW1 was in her aunt's house, the accused called PW1 to come to the house to have food prepared by PW2. The aunt of PW1 also asked PW1 to go to her house to have food as requested by her father. Accordingly, PW1 went to her house along with the accused at about 11.00 pm. When PW1 stepped into her house, the accused forcibly pushed her inside the room and locked it from inside. Immediately, PW1 pleaded with the accused to leave her so that she can go to her aunt's house. Unmindful of such request, the accused, under the influence of alcohol and narcotic substances, kicked PW1 in her abdomen and she fell down. The accused continuously assaulted PW1 and she was gripped with panic. At that time, PW3, brother of the PW1 was sleeping beneath the cot in the room. The accused thereafter demanded PW1 to remove the cloths by herself, which she bluntly refused. On such refusal, the accused forcibly undressed PW1 by removing her dress. When PW1 pleaded with the accused to relive her, he threatened her with a knife. Thereafter, the accused pressed the breasts of PW1/his own daughter and caused aggravated penetrative sexual assault. At the time of ejaculation, during withdrawal phase, with strong belief to eliminate any trace of seminal fluid in the private part of PW1 and also led by misplaced caution, had let the semen drop outside the vaginal area of PW1. PW1 wept in pain and unmindful of her cries, the accused repeated his acts of penetration atleast thrice thereafter till 6.00 am in the morning. At all times when the accused was about to ejaculate, he let the sperm to spill out of the vaginal portion cautiously. After having ravaged PW1 with aggravated penetrative acts, the accused let PW1 to go out of the house at about 6.30 am in the morning. Immediately, PW1 complained about the acts of sexual assault which she was subjected to at the instance of the accused to her mother, PW2. PW3 also complained to PW2 about such acts perpetrated by his father towards his sister. PW2 immediately narrated the incident to her relatives namely junior paternal uncle Kumar, Pandiammal and thereafter, PW2 decided to give a complaint to the police. Accordingly, a complaint dated 31.05.2015 was given by PW1 to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, Madurai District. On the basis of such complaint, a case in Crime No. 111 of 2015 was registered by PW25 as against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of POSCO Act. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report, which PW25 forwarded to the higher authorities as well as to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. PW1/victim was a child within the meaning of POSCO Act and therefore she was examined by the court below in an in-camera proceedings. We have gone through the deposition of PW1 in entirety. At the time of giving the evidence, PW1 was aged about 16 years. PW1 had narrated the sequence of events in her own childish language befitting her age. PW1 has categorically stated that her father stripped her naked and indulged in aggravated penetrative sexual assault unmindful of her protest or objections. She wept throughout the night but notwithstanding the same, she was mercilessly assaulted by the accused. It was the deposition of PW1 that her father indulged in such obscene act four times and whenever he was likely to ejaculate, he let the sperm out of her vaginal portion. It is further deposed that only in the morning at about 6.30 pm, her father left the house. In her cross-examination, nothing useful could be ascertained from her in support of the defence. Such deposition of PW1 inspires our confidence that there cannot be any reason to either disbelieve or discard such deposition of PW1. There is no reason for PW1 to implicate her own father. We also notice that at the time when PW1 was examined in the in-camera proceedings, PW3 mother was present as also the accused. Therefore, the chance of tutoring or for any reason requiring the PW1 to depose against her own father is very remote. Therefore, we hold that the sole testimony of PW1/victim girl is sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused on the basis of the sole testimony of PW1/victim girl.