State appealed against acquittal in POCSO case due to discrepancies in victim's testimony and alleged coercion. High Court upheld acquittal, citing unsafe evidence and reasonable doubt regarding the incident's details and the child's competency.
Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2016 dismissed; acquittal of respondents affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2023
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
State Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 600 104, [AWPS, Perambalur Crime No.02/2013] .. Appellant / Complainant
v.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2015 dated 06.11.2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and convict the respondents/accused 1 and 3 as charged.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.M.Jegan (Legal Aid Counsel)
1
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the State, challenging the acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A3, for the offence under Section 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'), passed vide judgment dated 16.11.2015 in Spl.S.C.No.01/2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim child informed about the occurrence to her friend's mother [PW3]; that PW3
2
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
confronted the 1st respondent/A1 about the incident and the 1st respondent gave evasive reply and ran away from the place; that PW4, came to know of the alleged occurrence and she in turn informed PW1, the Social Welfare Officer; that PW1 after obtaining permission from the Collector enquired the girl child and thereafter, lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] on 22.01.2013.
(iii) On receipt of the complaint, PW13, the investigation officer registered the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Sections 376 of IPC r/w 7, 9(g) (n) and 10 of the POCSO Act, against the respondents.
(iv) PW14-Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. She sent the victim for medical examination, which was conducted by PW12. She thereafter, sent the respondents for medical examination to PW16.
(v) After examination of all the witnesses, PW14, filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur for the offence under
3
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, against the respondents. It is to be noted that though the FIR was registered for the offence under Section 376 of IPC also, the final report was only for the above said offences of sexual assault.
(vi) On appearance of the respondents/accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2015 and was made over to the Sessions Court [Mahila Court], Perambalur, for trial. The trial Court framed charges u/s.7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, as against the accused and since A2 absconded, the case against him was split up. When questioned, the respondents pleaded 'not guilty'.
(viii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits. When the respondents/accused were questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them,
they denied the same. On the side of the respondents/A1 and A3, one Ramesh, was examined as DW1 and the statement of Mr.Ilavarasan, Head
4
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
Constable, Mangalamedu Police Station, under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.D1 (It is not known how the learned trial Judge has
permitted the marking of a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.).
(ix) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the evidence of victim did not inspire confidence as she had given contrary versions and therefore, it is unsafe to render a finding of guilt and acquitted the respondents/accused. Hence, the State has preferred the appeal challenging the said acquittal.
in her evidence, there is no necessity for her to give a false evidence as against her own father. Her version that sexual assault was committed on her, is corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4 and PW1, who took action on the basis of the victim's complaint to them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the finding of the trial Court is perverse and has not taken into consideration Sections 29 and 30
5
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
of the POCSO Act, which provides that the Special Court shall presume the commission of offence and the culpable mental state.
the evidence of PW2, the victim. The others are hearsay witnesses. It is no
6
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
doubt true that PW4 and PW1 according to the prosecution have acted on the complaint given by PW2. However, this Court finds that the charge states that the alleged occurrence took place in a verandah of a hotel, whereas, in Ex.P1, it is stated that the occurrence took place in a bungalow. Further, in the complaint it is stated that the 1st respondent, father of the victim brought the victim from the hostel on the day of occurrence. However, the victim in her deposition would state that she came on her own.
finds that the victim during the voir dire questioning by the learned Judge,
has stated as follows:
“nfs;tp:- eP v';F te;jpUf;fpwha; bjhpa[kh? gjpy;:- ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F te;Js;nsd;/ nfs;tp:- cz;ik vd;why; vd;d bjhpa[kh? gjpy;:- cz;ik vd;why; bgha;/ nfs;tp:- bgha; vd;why; vd;d bjhpa[kh? gjpy ; :- mJ jhd; cz;ik;/”
From the above questions and answers, it is seen that the victim was asked
as to what is meant by 'truth'. She had stated that it is a 'lie' and when she
7
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
was asked as to what is a 'lie', she had stated that it is 'truth'. It is well settled that the purpose of questioning of child witnesses is to ensure that the child witness is able to comprehend the question and answer correctly. The above questions and answers do not suggest that the witness understood the question. It is also seen that DW1 had stated that the victim suffered from mental illness.
that the victim had admitted atleast in two places that she was deposing on the instructions of the Social Welfare Officer and the authorities running the Home, where she stayed. She had not clearly spelt out as to the exact nature of the sexual assault committed on her. The trial Court therefore, found that it is highly unsafe to rely upon her evidence to hold that the respondents are guilty of the offences.
no perversity, to interfere with the said finding in an appeal against acquittal. Hence, this Court finds no merits in the appeal and accordingly,
8
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
07.12.2023
Index : yes/no Neutral citation : yes/no ars
To
9
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ars
Crl.A.No.564 of 2016
07.12.2023
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused can be set aside given discrepancies in the victim's testimony regarding the occurrence details.
Whether the victim child had the requisite competency and understanding to depose in the court of law.
Whether the findings of the trial Court acquitting the accused are perverse and require interference by the High Court.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
Kumar
Raja
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
