Madras High Court
Velayudham vs State By on 3 August, 2021
Crl.A.No.318 of
2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.A.No.318 of 2021
Velayudham .. Appellant
.Vs.
State by:
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur South, Tirupur,
Crime No.8 of 2019. .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment
dated 15.04.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court)
Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Franklin
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated
15.04.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur.
2.The case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence the
victim child/P.W.1 was aged about 10 years, residing along with her
parents and brother. On the date of occurrence i.e on 09.08.2019, when
the victim child went to her grandmother's house, after returning from the
school, at that time the accused, who is none other than the second
husband of the victim child's grand mother had committed sexual assault
on her by rubbing over her breasts and left his hand into her panty,
placed his hand over her vagina and thereby, sexually harassed the victim
child. Hence, a complaint/Ex.P2 was registered against the appellant.
3.The respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2019
against the appellant for the offence under Section 9 (m) which is
punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of
convenience]. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police
filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur. The offence is
against a child which falls under the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of
POCSO Act and the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
case on file in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019. After completing the formalities,
the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the
offence under Section 9 (m) which is punishable under Section 10 of
POCSO Act.
4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court,
on the side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and no
material object was marked. After examining the prosecution witnesses,
the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant/accused and
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the
incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side
of the defence, no oral and no documentary evidence was produced.
5. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either
side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the
appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 9 (m) which is punishable
under Section 10 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo further a period of one year
rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentences,
the appellant is before this Court.
6.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is none other than the grandfather of the victim child and he has
not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Even prior to
the marriage of P.W.2/mother of the victim child that there was an enmity
between the appellant and the husband of P.W.2, due to such enmity and
in order to take vengeance, the father of the victim child tutored her and
foisted a false compliant against the appellant. He would further submit
that at the time of occurrence, the grandmother and brother of the victim
child were present in the house, however, they were not examined as
witnesses. Further, one Manikandan, who is the father of victim child has
stated that soon after hearing the said incident, he contacted Child Help
Line and informed the said incident and on their advice, P.W.2/mother of
the victim child filed the complaint against the appellant, but, the said
Manikandan was not examined as a witness. Therefore, non-examination
of father, brother and grandmother of the victim child is fatal to the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
of the prosecution. Further, P.W.3/Doctor, one who examined the victim
child has deposed that no external injuries were found on the victim child
and also chemical examination report shows that no spermatozoa was
detected in the vaginal smear sent for chemical examination and hence,
medical evidence also not supported the case of the prosecution. Further,
P.W.2/mother of the victim girl has deposed that at the time of occurrence,
her son, daughter and the appellant lying on the cot and watched
television, in such circumstances there is no possibility of committing
such offence by the appellant. Hence, the trial Court has failed to
appreciate the entire evidence and wrongly convicted and sentenced the
appellant only on assumption and sympathy and hence, the judgment of
the trial Court against the appellant is liable to be set aside.
7.1 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the
respondent would submit that the victim child was 10 years old at the
time of occurrence and the appellant is none other than the
grandfather of the victim child. On 09.08.2019, after returning from the
school, the victim child and her brother went to her grand mother's house,
since her parents had gone to their regular work. At that time the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
grandmother of the victim child prepared food and when the victim child
was lying on the cot and watching television, the accused sexually
harassed the victim child. Soon after the occurrence, initially, the victim
child informed the said incident to her brother and subsequently, he
informed to her father and thereafter, the complaint was registered
against the appellant.
7.2 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further
submit that after registration of the complaint, the victim child was
produced before the Doctor/P.W.3 for medical examination. P.W.3/Doctor
has clearly deposed that on her enquiry, the victim child stated that her
grandfather misbehaved with her and on her examination she found that
no external injuries were found on the victim child and the Doctor issued
her final opinion/Ex.P5 stating that the victim has not lost her virginity.
Subsequently, the victim child was produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C./Ex.P11, in which, she has clearly narrated the said incident.
Therefore, from the evidence of victim child during trial as P.W.1, her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and her statement before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
Doctor, the prosecution established its case that the appellant has
committed sexual assault on the victim child. Further, medical evidence
also supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted and sentenced the
appellant and there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
9.This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court,
which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an
independent finding.
10.Admittedly, the Sessions Judge framed charges against the
appellant for the offence under Section 9 (m) which is punishable under
Section 10 of POCSO Act. In order to substantiate the same, on the side
of the prosecution totally 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
P.W.12, out of which, the victim child was examined as P.W.1.
11. On a reading of the evidence of P.W.1, it reveals that she was
10 years old and studying 5th standard, at the time of occurrence. On
09.8.2019, after returning from the School, the victim child and her
brother went to her grandmother's house. At that time her grand mother
prepared food and the victim child was lying on the cot and watching
television, the appellant who was beside her left his hand into her panty
and then touched private part. After the occurrence, she informed the
said incident to her father and thereby, the complaint was registered
against the appellant. Subsequently, she was produced before P.W.3/
Doctor for medical examination, in which, she has clearly narrated the
said incident. Thereafter, she was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C/Ex.P11,
in which, she has clearly narrated the said incident.
12. A combined reading of the evidence of the victim child during
the trial as P.W.1 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, clearly
show that the appellant has committed aggravated sexual assault on the
victim child, who was aged about 10 years. In order to prove the age of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.8/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
the victim child, the prosecution exhibited the birth certificate of the
victim child, which was marked as Ex.P.1. As per Ex.P1 the date of birth
of the victim child is 03.02.2010, whereas, the date of occurrence is
09.08.2019. Therefore, at the time of occurrence the age of the victim
child is only 9 years and not completed 10 years. Since she is a minor, it
falls under definition of 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act.
13. In a case of this nature, if any person touched the private parts
of the minor child with sexual intent which involves physical contact
without penetration is said to have committed sexual assault, which falls
under Section 7 POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act.
Section 9 (m) of POCSO Act deals with Aggravated Sexual Assault on a
child below 12 years. On a combined reading of both Sections, it reveals
that the act committed by the accused is chargeable under Section 9(m) of
POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
14. The defence taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the brother and grandmother of the victim child were present in the
house on the date of occurrence, but, they were not examined as
witnesses by the prosecution. In the present case, the victim girl has
clearly stated that no other person has noticed the said incident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.9/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
Therefore, mere non examination of independent eye witness is not fatal
to the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.2/mother of the victim child
clearly deposed that she is not an eye witness to the said occurrence, she
was only a hearsay witness. Therefore, from the evidence of the victim
child, the prosecution proved that the accused has committed aggravated
sexual assault on the victim child. In cases of this nature presence of
independent eye witnesses are mostly improbable. If the evidence of sole
witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, conviction is permissible.
Therefore, the evidence of the victim child is enough to convict the
accused and the Court has to see whether there is any reason to discard
the evidence of the victim child. In this case, no doubt arise for the
trustworthiness of the evidence of the victim child.
15. The main defence taken by the learned counsel for the appellant
is that there was previous enmity between the father of the victim child
and the appellant. Due to such enmity, in order to take vengeance, the
father of the victim child foisted a false case against the appellant and
tutored the victim child and therefore, she has spoken as tutored by her
father. Further defence is that non examination of the father of the victim
child is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the father
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.10/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
of the victim child is not an eye witness to the occurrence and only based
on the information given by her daughter, he contacted Child Help Line
and registered the complaint. Therefore, mere non examination of the
father of the victim child is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since
the appellant is a known person, who is none other than second husband
of the victim child's grand mother, the identification of the appellant is not
in dispute and therefore, the only question that has to be decided is,
whether the appellant has rebutted the presumption that he has no sexual
intention to touch the victim child.
16.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the
time of occurrence, the appellant was not present in the house, however,
the same was not substantiated by the appellant. In the present case, the
evidence of the victim child clearly shows that at the time of occurrence,
the victim child went to her grandmother's house, where the appellant
also present in the house and she has stated that while watching
television, the appellant misbehaved with her. The evidence of the victim
girl is corroborated with the evidence of Doctor and the statement of the
victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In cases of this nature,
one cannot expect eye witness, since the culprits will take a chance only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.11/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
on the loneliness of the minor children and make use of their innocence
and exploit them sexually.
17.Under these circumstances, this Court safely come to the
conclusion that the appellant has committed aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on the victim child and thus, the prosecution has
established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and also substantiated
the charged offence under Section 9(m) which is punishable under
Section 10 of POCSO Act. In the light of the above discussion, this Court
does not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
18.In fine, this Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed
in Spl.C.No.45 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur is confirmed.
03.08.2021
Internet:Yes/No
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.12/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.13/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court)
Tiruppur.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur South, Tirupur.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records, if any, to the
High Court, Madras. | trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.14/15
Crl.A.No.318 of
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
CRL.A.No.318 of 2021
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.15/15
