Partly allowed

State Rep by v. Dandayutham @ Kannan

Madras HC24 Feb 2023CRL A/482/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against the acquittal of four accused of sexual assault on an 8-year-old girl. The High Court reversed the acquittal of the first accused, finding the victim's testimony stellar and corroborated by medical evidence and res gestae witness, convicting him under POCSO and IPC, while upholding the acquittal of the other accused for lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal of the first accused was set aside; he was convicted under Sections 5(i), (m), (r) read with 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 307 and 450 IPC, sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment each

State Rep by Vs Dandayutham @ Kannan — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.A.No.482 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Judgment Reserved on : 03.02.2023

¶4

Judgment Pronounced on : 24.02.2023

¶5

Sentenced on : 28.02.2023

¶6

CORAM :

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Crl.A.No.482 of 2016

¶9

State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras - 600 104. (Tiruppur AWPS (North) Cr.No.31 of 2013) .. Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Dandayutham @ Kannan 2. Raja 3. Saravanan 4. Devendran .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of The Criminal Code of Procedure, to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in S.C.No.92 of 2013, dated

¶13

04.04.2014 and convict and sentence the accused.

Findings of the Trial Court	Reason
In the second page of the F.I.R, the time at which P.W.1 appeared in the Police Station has not been mentioned and that the same is admitted by P.W.18.	The same, at best, can only be an inadvertent error and does not in any manner relevant to the offence alleged or the defence taken by the accused.
The time and manner of intimidation by the accused Nos.2 to 4 is doubtful as the complaint has been claimed to be written in the_Sree Saran Medical Centre, Tiurppur_ itself and if so, the factum as to the accused Nos.2 to 4 threatening the complainant on the way to police station could not have been mentioned in the complaint.	This finding can be relevant only in respect of the accused Nos.2 to 4 and is absolutely irrelevant while dealing with the first accused. As a matter of fact, the same was also explained by P.W.1 stating that originally, from the Hospital, when they started for the Police Station, they were threatened and therefore, they again came back to the Hospital and thereafter, the complaint was written and they proceeded further to the Police Station.
The earliest information is given to the Phone No.2238580 and the said information and the other information shows that the F.I.R is not the earliest information.	Even assuming that the first information has gone to Anupparpalayam Police Station by way of telephone call, even going to the extent that the F.I.R, in this case, is not the earliest information and is hit by Section 161(2) of_The Cr.P.C.,_the same by itself is not a ground for acquittal.
When P.W.2 has already finished her last examination and when the tuition Teacher has informed that there will not be any tuition, there was no necessity for P.W.2 to go to the tuition Teacher's house and thereafter, come home. The major portion of paragraph No.7 of the lower Court judgment is dedicated to this. P.W.1 has not stated in the complaint that	When the offence had happened at the victim child's house. Before that whether she went to the tuition Teacher's home and came back or not itself is not having a great bearing on the incident. This apart, it is common knowledge that every tuition Teacher closes classes on the last examination and it is also common for every child, after finishing the examination, to visit the tuition Teacher just to show the question paper or otherwise. Therefore, the Trial Court, as if it is not in the knowing of the normal course of the facts in this part of the world, makes a big issue as to why the child went to the tuition Teacher when there was no tuition. In the complaint it is categorically stated

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

M.Nagamalli Vs The Managing Director

The Management Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour

E.Jayalakshmi Vs S.Suresh Babu

Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Thirugnanam (Died) Vs Inspector of Police

Anandan Vs State Rep. by