Chinnavan @ Muneeswaran Vs the Deputy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

Chinnavan @ Muneeswaran Vs the Deputy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal allowed; the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, dated 27.06.2017, in Special S.C.No.93 of 2015 set aside, with the conviction and sentence thereunder.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 (2 counts) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act can stand when the presence of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence between 5.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 21.07.2012 is contradicted and unexplained. +2 more

Court's answer

The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence between 5.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 21.07.2012 is not established: P.W.1, a bank employee working 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., took no leave and gave no reason to be present at 5.15 p.m., and P.W.2, a sanitary worker who finished work in the afternoon, offered no explanation for being present; this affects the root of the prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

There is no evidence on record to prove the very motive for the occurrence: the alleged motive (difference over burial of a dog) was not stated in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who admitted no connection with the accused beyond belonging to the same village.

Key takeaways

The eye-witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.9 did not support the prosecution, and a holistic reading of the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.9 discloses no specific admission or connection to the occurrence supplying any dependable or verifiable version; the trial Judge erred in placing reliance on the hostile witnesses' evidence.ratio¶22
A statutory presumption against the accused can be activated only if the prosecution proves the foundational/fundamental facts; unless the foundation of the prosecution is proved, it is not incumbent on the accused to establish by negative proof that he did not commit the offence.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.374(2) CrPC against judgment dated 27.06.2017 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram (Special S.C.No.93 of 2015) convicting the sole accused under S.324 (2 counts) IPC and S.3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act (3 years RI + Rs.5,000/- fine; 5 years RI + Rs.25,000/- fine, concurrent). Allowing the appeal (R.N. Manjula, J.), the Court held: (i) the presence of the injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the scene between 5.00 and 5.30 p.m. on 21.07.2012 was unexplained and mutually/self-contradictory (bank employee's 9 a.m.-9 p.m. hours; sanitary worker's morning hours), affecting the root of the prosecution; (ii) no motive was proved; (iii) the eye-witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.9 turned hostile and their evidence yielded nothing dependable; (iv) following Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 and Amol Dudhram Barsagade v. State of Maharashtra (SC, Crl.A.600/2017), a statutory presumption arises only upon proof of foundational facts, and per Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 hostile-witness evidence is acceptable only to the extent dependable on careful scrutiny; (v) the contradictions being material and touching the root, the accused received the benefit of doubt and the trial court judgment was set aside.