Thangaraj, Male Aged 28 Years Vs State Rep.by

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed in Spl. C.C. No. 8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Appellant .. Mr. M. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr. G. Vishwanathan

¶12

For Respondent .. Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

This Criminal Appeal had been filed by the Appellant against the

¶15

judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 passed in Spl. C.C. No.8 of 2016 on

¶16

the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/24

¶18

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶19

which he was convicted for the offence under Section 3 (a) read with 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

¶20

The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:

¶21

2.1 P.W-1 Selvi is the wife of P.W-4 Nagaraj. They have four daughters. Victim child P.W-2 is their youngest daughter. The other three elder sisters of P.W-2 got married and are residing in different places. P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-4 do not have telephone. Accused Thangaraj is residing near their house. The other three daughters of P.W-1 used to contact P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-4, through the mobile phone of Accused. While so, on 13.11.2014 at 07.00 a.m. when P.W-2 was alone in the house, Accused came there, gave his mobile phone, by saying that her sister was on the line. The victim spoke to her sister through the mobile phone of Accused and when she gave the mobile phone to the Accused, he suddenly locked the door and on the promise of marriage, he committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, by compulsion and against her wish, by saying “cd;id jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;fpnwd;/ tPl;oy; ahUk; ,y;iy/ $hypahf

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/24

¶24

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶25

,Uf;fyhk;/”According to P.W-2 she did not reveal it to her parents immediately. When she was questioned by P.W-1/mother as to why she was looking dull, she replied that she was not keeping good health. Thereafter, on 14.11.2014, P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-4 went to Madurai to meet the sister of the victim girl at Madurai. On return, P.W-2 disclosed the incident to P.W-1mother. Therefore, on 22.11.2014, a complaint, under Ex.P-1 was given to the All Women Police Station, Coimbatore (East) based on which the case in Crime No. 39 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Ex.P-14 is the First Information Report.

¶26

2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-14, P.W-16, Inspector of Police, taken up investigation and recorded the statement of the victim girl. She also went to the place of occurrence and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P-15 and observation mahazar under Ex.P-3 in the presence of witnesses Dass P.W-6 and Muruganandam P.W-7. She also enquired P.W-1/mother, P.W3/Lakshmi/sister and P.W-4-Nagaraj/Father and recorded their statement. On 23.11.2014, she arrested the Accused in this case at Singanallur Bus Stop and remanded him to judicial custody. She has also subjected the victim girl-P.W2 as well as the Accused to medical examination and recorded the statement of the Doctors. After concluding her investigation, she laid the final report

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/24

¶29

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶30

against the Appellant for the offences under Sections 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.1, Magisterial Level, Coimbatore.

¶31

2.3. On receipt of the charge sheet filed by P.W-16, summon was sent to the Accused. On his appearance, copies of the documents relied on by the Prosecution were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offence for which the final report was laid against the Appellant has to be tried by the Court of Sessions, the records were forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore. The Accused was also bound over to the said Court.

¶32

2.4. On appearance of the Accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the Accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore, had framed charges against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) r/w.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The AppellantAccused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered.

¶33

2.5. In order to prove the Prosecution case projected against the Appellant-Accused, totally 16 witnesses were examined before the Trial Court as P.W-1 to P.W-16 and 15 documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15. No

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

4/24

¶36

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶37

material object was marked by the Prosecution. On behalf of the Accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.

¶38

2.6. After conclusion of trial, on assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore, convicted and sentenced the Accused as mentioned hereinabove.

¶39

2.7. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment dated 10.05.2017, passed in Spl. C.C. No. 8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore, this Criminal Appeal had been filed.

¶40

Thiru. M. John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.G.Vishwanathan, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Accused had been framed due to previous animosity that developed between the parents of the Accused and the parents of the victim regarding money transaction. Both families are neighbours. They had been in good relationship but due to money lending and repayment, there had been a dispute between them. In order to settle score, the Accused was framed by the parents of the victim by forcing the victim to give a complaint as though the Accused forcibly indulged in sexual intercourse with her on 13.11.2014.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/24

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

4.

It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

¶46

Appellant that the deposition of Prosecutrix loses the sterling quality. Above all, all the Prosecution Witness are all related to the Prosecutrix. P.W-1 is the mother of P.W-2/Prosecutrix. P.W-3 is her sister. P.W-4 is her father. P.W-5 is also her sister. P.W-6, P.W-7 and P.W-8 are the neighbours. From the evidence of P.W-9, Tmt. Thenmozhi, the Headmistress of the School where the Prosecutrix studied, it is found that she completed her X standard in the year 2012- 2013. As per the date of birth furnished by P.W-9, Head Mistress of the School, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 05.08.1997. Therefore, on the date of alleged occurrence on 13.11.2014, the victim was aged 17 years and 3 months.

¶47

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the complaint, Ex.P-1, the mother of the victim claims that her daughter studied upto X Standard. After completing X standard, she had been employed in a grinder manufacturing unit for monthly salary for three years. If three years is added to the person who completed X standard, the victim is aged 18 years on the date of occurrence. Therefore, she will not be treated as a child to invoke the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

6/24

¶50

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶51

learned Judge failed to consider those aspects and erroneously convicted the Accused only on the evidence of the Prosecutrix and the Doctor's evidence through P.W-10, P.W-12 and P.W-13.

¶52

P.W-10 is Dr. Sureshkanth who subjected the Victim to Radiological test to determine her age and issued radiological test report under Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 reporting that the age of the victim was above 17 and below 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Dr.Devilakshmi, P.W12 submitted that there was no injury on the breast, abdomen, thighs and sexual organ of the victim. P.W-14/ Venkateshwaran had in his report under Ex.P-13 stated that no semen were found in the vaginal smear collected and forwarded by P.W-12. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of P.W-2 and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It indicates that it was a consensual sex and cannot be brought within the purview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The complaint itself proceeds that the Prosecutrix, the daughter of P.W-1/Complainant was aged 18. The victim who accompanied by her mother before P.W-12/ Dr.Devilakshmi also mentioned her age as 18 in the presence of her mother. Therefore, the offence under section 3 r/w.4 of the Protection of Children from

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

7/24

¶55

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶56

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not at all attracted. Even if the offence is brought within the fold of Section 376 of IPC, it is a consensus sex as the victim was 18 years old as on the date of occurrence.

¶57

The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant also invited the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the victim/P.W-2. In the cross-examination, it was specifically questioned as to whether there was misunderstanding between the family of the Accused and the family of the victim/Prosecutrix and it was admitted by the Prosecutrix in her crossexamination which reads as under:

¶58

“vd; mk;khtpw;Fk;. M$u; vjpupapd; mg;ghtpw;Fk; ,ilna gzk; th';fy;. bfhLf;fy; rk;ge;jkhf rz;il Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rup// mt;thW rz;il Vw;gl;ljhy; vjpup ve;j fhyj;jpYk; v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;jnj fpilahJ vd;Wk; v';fsplk; nghd; ngr nghid bfhLj;jnj fpilahJ vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rupay;y/ vjpupapd; nghd; ek;gu; gw;wpnah. vd; mf;fh ts;spapd; nghd; ek;gu; gw;wpnah ehd; nghyPrhu; ,lk; brhy;ytpy;iy/ gzk; bfhLf;fy;. th';fy; jfuhW fhuzkhf vjpupapd; mg;ghit gHpth';Ftjw;fhf vjpup kPJ bgha;ahf ,e;j g[fhiu bfhLj;Js;nshk; vd;why; rupay;y/ g[fhu; bfhLf;f eh';fs; fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F brd;wnjhL rup/ mjw;F gpd;dpl;L nghyPrhu; vd;id tprhupf;ftpy;iy/ vjpup vd;Dld; clYwt[ bfhz;lhu; vd;gJ jtwhd bra;jp vd;Wk; mt;thW vJt[k; elf;fnt ,y;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rupay;y/”

¶59

P.W-3/sister of the Prosecutrix had in her cross-examination

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis admitted that she had written the complaint under Ex.P-1, based on the

¶61

8/24

¶62

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶63

information furnished to her by Prosecutrix. The complaint was given as though the mother of the Prosecutrix was the Complainant. P.W-2 and P.W-3 had denied the suggestion that individually the Prosecutrix as well as their sisters have independent mobile phones and there is no necessity to contact them through the Appellant-Accused.

¶64

The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that except P.W-2, rest of the witnesses are all hearsay witness. None of the Prosecution Witness have disclosed the phone number of the Accused or the phone number from which they used to call the Accused. If what had been stated in the complaint under Ex.P-1 is true, the Complaint itself should have contained the mobile number of the Accused or the mobile phone from which the Accused was contacted. In the absence of such an important particular, the complaint itself is false. When the Accused has four sisters who are all unmarried, the claim of the Prosecutrix that on 13.11.2024 by 7 a.m in the morning, the Accused came to handover the mobile phone and caught hold of her, bolted the door from inside, undressed her and indulged in sexual intercourse is unbelievable. Except Prosecutrix, all the other Prosecution witness denied the suggestion of the defense that there was animosity between two families.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9/24

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

10.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the denial of the defence of the Accused in the cross-examination by P.W-1, P.W3, P.W-4 and P.W-5 is a wanton denial. Prosecutrix admitted that there is animosity between the father of the Accused and the mother of the Prosecutrix/P.W-1 in relation to money transaction. Under those circumstances, the claim of the Complainant/P.W-1 and the claim of the Prosecutrix/P.W-2 that on 13.11.2014, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the Accused in his house is found unbelievable. When the Accused himself has four unmarried sisters, a person of that status and who is neighbor of the family of the Prosecutrix cannot go or cannot have indulged in such activities. It is a foisted case fixed by the family of the Prosecutrix to wreck vengeance on the Accused. In any event, the charge against the Appellant for having committed an offence under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is unfounded.

¶70

The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate had recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix under 164 Cr.P.C under Ex.P-7 in which, in the middle of the statement, the Prosecutrix expressed that in the presence of the mother, she is

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

10/24

¶73

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶74

unable to express everything freely. Therefore, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded as per the procedure contemplated under law. Till the middle of the 164 recording, the mother of the victim/prosecutrix was available before the Court which is one of the procedural violations. Therefore, the recording of the statement under Section 164 itself is not proper. The mother having given in a complaint under Ex.P-1, accompanied the Prosecutrix for medical examination with a woman constable in whose presence the query of the Doctor to the victim about her age was mentioned as 18 under Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 and this indicates that she is aged 18 years. Even otherwise the bona fide under Ex.P-4 cannot at all be considered by the Court. The certificate issued by the Headmaster or Head of the Institution is a proof to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P-4 cannot be considered. Even if Ex.P-4 is considered she had crossed the age of 18. Therefore, the evidence of P.W-2 is not of sterling quality. Unless the learned Trial Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court is satisfied that the evidence of the Prosecutrix is of sterling quality, Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 can be invoked as though there is a presumption in favour of the Prosecutrix. Here, the documents furnished by the Prosecution itself shows that the age of the Prosecutrix does not attract the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

11/24

¶76

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶77

consequently Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 also cannot be invoked. The learned Judge had mechanically applied Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and recorded a conviction under section 3 r/w.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is perverse and is to be set aside.

¶78

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by way of reply, vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel by stating that the Prosecutrix has clearly narrated the incident that had taken place on 13.11.2014 at 7:00 a.m. At that time, when she was alone at home the Accused came to the residence and given his mobile phone stating that the elder sister of the Prosecutrix, who is in Madurai, is on the line. The elder sister was also examined as P.W-5, who had also corroborated the incident that she called the mobile phone of the Accused on 13.11.2014. Therefore, by the evidence of the P.W-1/mother of the Prosecutrix, P.W-2/the Prosecutrix, P.W3/elder sister of Prosecutrix, P.W-4/father of the Prosecutrix, P.W-5/elder sister, the case of the Prosecution has been proved. In fact, P.W-5, who was under treatment, contacted the Accused on 12.11.2014 and wanted to talk to her mother. Accordingly, the parents of the Prosecutrix/P.W-1 and P.W-4 left

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

12/24

¶81

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶82

on 13.11.2014 to Madurai. Therefore, they left and P.W-2 was at Coimbatore on 13.11.2014. When the victim was subjected to medical examination, P.W12/Doctor had indicated that Hymen was not intact indicating that the Prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. The complainant/the mother P.W-1 under Ex.P-1 complaint clearly stated that her daughter is aged 17 years only and she is unmarried. Ex.P-4 marked through P.W-9/Headmistress of the School had only stated that she completed X standard in the academic year 2012-2013 and therefore, it cannot be considered that the prosecutrix had crossed 18 years of age on the alleged date of occurrence.

¶83

Regarding the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the Accused that there was no injuries on the breast, abdomen, thighs and genitalia of the Prosecutrix, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even if there is no injury, when the Prosecutrix's evidence is of sterling quality it has to be believed and a conviction can be recorded as per the reported decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 74 in which it was held as follows:-

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

There can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality.

¶86

13/24

¶87

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶88

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that

¶89

cases of sexual assault stands in a different footing from other sessions cases.

¶90

In cases of sexual assault, there cannot be direct witnesses. Therefore, the deposition of the Prosecutrix has to be treated as a gospel truth by the Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that there cannot be any corroboration to the deposition of the prosecutrix in a case of this nature.

¶91

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also invited the

¶92

attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, in para 19 regarding the age of the victim :

¶93

(1) Whether the Accused person committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim and

¶94

(2) Whether the charge against the Accused under section 3(a) r/w.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act had been proved by the prosecution.

¶95

The learned Judge had discussed point (1) in paragraph 19 and 20 and had discussed (2) regarding the evidence invoking the Provisions of Section 29 from paragraph 21 till 41. A threadbare discussion had been made

¶96

on the above by the learned Sessions Judge while recording a conviction. The

¶97

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶98

14/24

¶99

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶100

Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore is well reasoned judgment. As per the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, he had properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a logical conclusion that the Accused had committed the offence attracting punishment under section 3 r/w. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in Special C.C.No.8 of 2016, dated 10.05.2017 is a well reasoned judgment and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Appeal lacks merit and accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

¶101

Point for consideration:

¶102

Whether the Judgment conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in Special C.C.No.8 of 2016 dated 10.05.2017 is perverse warranting interference by this Court?

¶103

Heard Thiru. M. John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State. Perused the deposition of the witnesses https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.W-1 to P.W-16 and documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 and the judgment of

¶104

15/24

¶105

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶106

the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in Special C.C.No.18 of 2016, dated 10.05.2017.

¶107

In order to prove the charge against the Appellant-Accused, Prosecution had examined as many as 16 witnesses. Among the Prosecution witnesses, P.W-1 is the mother of the Prosecutrix, P.W-2 is the Prosecutrix, P.W-3 is the elder sister of the Prosecutrix. P.W-4 is the father of the Prosecutrix. P.W-5 is the elder sister of the Prosecutrix and elder daughter of P.W-1 and P.W-4. According to Ex.P-1, complaint, on 13.11.2014, leaving the Prosecutrix alone at home, her parents have gone to Madurai. When the prosecutrix was alone, the Accused came to her house, handed over the mobile phone to her by stating that her sister from Madurai want to talk to her. After the conversation was over, when the prosecutrix handed over the mobile phone back to the Accused, the Accused bolted the door from inside and committed penetrative sexual assault on the promise that he would marry her.

¶108

On perusal of Ex.P-1, it is found that the mother, as Complainant, had stated that the Prosecutrix had completed X standard and she had been employed in a wet grinder manufacturing unit in Coimbatore for three years. Such a statement in Ex.P-1 indicates that on the date of preferring complaint

¶109

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶110

16/24

¶111

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶112

under Ex.P-1, the prosecutrix was 18 years old. But, wantonly, the age of the prosecutrix was given as 17 to press into service the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. As pointed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, nowhere in the complaint under Ex.P-1, the mobile number of the Accused had been mentioned. In the cross examination of P.W-1, Mother of the Prosecutrix, she had stated that her elder daughter had written down the complaint. P.W-1 in her deposition stated that the complaint under Ex.P-1 was taken down by her elder daughter, Lakshmi. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Judge in point for consideration (1) in the discussion of the evidence had raised the question as to whether the victim is a child attracting the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and answered that as per the complaint under Ex.P-1, her age was 17 years and it is also corroborated by P.W-10 Dr. Sureshkanth by issuing Ex.P-6, in which the age of the victim was recorded as above 17 and below 18 on the date of examination dated 09.12.2014. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge held that there is no evidence to show that the victim had completed 18 years at the time of occurrence and consequently convicted the Appellant-Accused. The learned Trial Judge also relied on the bona fide certificate issued by P.W-9/ Thenmozhi Headmistress of the School where the date of birth for Prosecutrix

¶113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶114

17/24

¶115

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶116

was mentioned as 05.09.1997, based on School records. P.W-9/Thenmzhi, headmistress of the School had mentioned that the prosecutrix completed her X standard in the academic year 2012-2013 and those who appear for academic year 2013 for the public examination SSLC, should have completed 15 years 6 months on the date of public examination. She also deposed that usually public examination are held in the month of March, April of the academic year. Therefore, P.W-2 /Prosecutrix should have appeared for SSLC examination in the month of March-April 2013. Her date of birth is 05.08.1997. As on 05.12.2012, she had completed 15 years 4 months. By the time, she appear for SSLC 2013, she had completed 15 years seven months. Even according to P.W-1, P.W-2 had been continuously employed after X standard for three years. Therefore, as on date of Ex.P-1 she had completed 15 years 6 months plus three years. As per the radiological report issued by P.W10 Dr Sureshkanth under Ex.P-6 she was aged more than 17 years and below 18 years. As far as radiological reports are concerned, it varies from individual to individual based on the food habits of the individual and the hereditary of the family. Therefore, a general guideline is issued that in cases where radiological report is received, the age indicates a range. From that range plus or minus two can be calculated. If that is calculated she is 17 + 2= 19 on the lower side or 18 + 2 = 20 on the higher side. If it is subtracted 17 minus 2 =

¶117

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶118

18/24

¶119

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶120

15, 18 – 2 =16. Therefore, for a better clarification, the School certificate issued by P.W-9/Thenmozhi can be relied. The headmistress of the School had deposed evidence, based on School register maintained in the School. As per the School Register, her date of birth is 05.08.1997. Therefore, by the end of the academic year 2012, she had completed 15 years and 4 months. Therefore, as rightly pointed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, the prosecutrix is not a child on the date of the alleged occurrence

¶121

In cases of this nature, there cannot be any direct witness. The defense of the Accused is that the case had been foisted to wreck vengeance on the family of the Accused as he is the only son for his parents and there are four daughters. It is also the contention of the Appellant that there was animosity due to borrowal and repayment between the father of the Accused and the mother of the prosecutrix. Even though the previous dispute between the father of Accused and mother of prosecutrix was denied by P.W-1, P.W-3 and P.W-5, it was admitted by P.W-2 that there is animosity between the two families. The claim of the mother of the Prosecutrix/P.W-1 in the complaint under Ex.P-1 is that they used to speak with her married daughters settled in various places and they used to contact them through the mobile phone of the Accused is not proved. If that is true, in the complaint under Ex.P-1, P.W-1

¶122

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶123

19/24

¶124

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶125

should have mentioned the mobile number of the Accused, but nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned. P.W-1 in the witness box stated that she is unable to remember the mobile number of the Accused. Even though the prosecutrix had given the mobile number of the Accused during her deposition, P.W-3 is the person who had written down the complaint but she had not mentioned the mobile number of the Accused anywhere in the complaint under Ex.P-1. Therefore, in the absence of mentioning the mobile number in the complaint, the root of the case of the prosecution is shaken.

¶126

Vied from the angle of the normal human conduct, if the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4 and P.W-5 is analysed and assessed, it is found unbelievable. When there is animosity between two families, it is unbelievable that the three elder daughters of P.W-1 regularly used to contact the Accused to speak to their parents.

¶127

P.W-1 deposed that she and her husband are employed as painters, so they are earning members. Painters, masons, daily wage earners, nowadays have basic mobile of their own to establish contact with those persons under whom they work. Even otherwise, P.W-2 is employed as per complaint under Ex.P-1 continuously for more than three years in a wet grinder manufacturing

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

20/24

¶130

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶131

unit. Therefore, at least she can own a mobile phone. Therefore, the complaint itself is doubtful, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. In such circumstance, the defense of the Accused is found reasonable.

¶132

The learned Trial Judge had considered the evidence without correct arithmetical calculation and based on the Doctor's evidence under Ex.P-6 arrived at a conclusion that the victim had not completed 18 years as per the Ex.P-4, the certificate issued by P.W-9/Headmistress of the School. In the presence of the mother the Prosecutrix herself had informed her age to P.W-12 Dr. Devilakshmi under Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 as 18 years. In 164 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court Coimbatore the age of the Prosecutrix is recorded as 18 years. Therefore, the conviction of the Accused under Section 3 r/w. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is perverse.

¶133

The offense under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 r/w. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are one and the same. In an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, the Accused can take up any number of defenses, in which case the conviction

¶134

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶135

21/24

¶136

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶137

will be less based on appreciation of evidence. Whereas for offense under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Court is duty bound to believe that the evidence of the children, as victims of sexual offences, are to be treated as bona fide and gospel truth for which presumption has to be drawn by the Court under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. This is not available for offence under 376 I.P.C. In any event, the invocation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the Appellant is not proper. The charge under 3 r/w. section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not at all attracted in this case as against the Appellant.

¶138

The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of the Prosecutrix is of sterling quality and the evidence of the Prosecutrix has to be appreciated as not of an accomplice cannot be considered in this case. The evidence of the injured victim has to inspire the confidence of the Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, the deposition of P.W-1 is not cogent and trustworthy and therefore, it does not inspire the confidence of this Court. In all probabilities the evidence through the cross examination of the Prosecutrix and parents and elder sisters P.W-1 to P.W-5 create doubt whether such an occurrence could

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

22/24

¶141

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶142

have taken place. If those circumstances are analyzed, the claim or allegation made against the Accused by P.W-2 cannot at all be accepted.

¶143

In the light of the above discussion, the Point for consideration is answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Prosecution. The Judgment conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore in Special C.C.No.8 of 2016 dated 10.05.2017 is found perverse and the same is to be set aside.

¶144

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed in Spl. C.C. No.8 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Coimbatore is set aside. The bail bond executed by the Appellant-Accused is ordered to be cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the Appellant-Accused.

¶145

18.03.2025

¶146

Shl Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

¶147

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶148

23/24

¶149

Crl.A.No.431 of 2017

¶150

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J