Madras High Court
Aravinthan vs The State Rep.By on 5 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.A.No.713 of 2019
Aravinthan .. Appellant
.Vs.
The State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Arumbavur Police Station,
Perambalur District,
Crime No.169 of 2019. .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019 dated
20.09.2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Perambalur.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Balachandran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Surya Prakash
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated
20.09.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the learned Mahila
Court, Perambalur.
Page No.1/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
2.According to the appellant, the respondent police registered a
case in Crime No.169 of 2019 against him for the offence punishable
under Sections 294(b), 451, 506(i) of IPC and Sections 7 r/w 8 of The
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter
'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. On completion of the
investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and the same was taken on
file in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019. After framing of charges and on completion
of trial, the accused/appellant found guilty under Section 451 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; and also for the offence under Sections 7 r/w 8
of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The
accused/appellant was acquitted from the charges under Sections 294(b)
and 506(i) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the
appellant/accused is before this Court.
3.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial
Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and also marked 14 documents as Exs.P1
Page No.2/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
to P14. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused
was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating
circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, the
accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has
been falsely implicated in this case and pleaded not guilty. On the side of
the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
4. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either
side and also considering the materials available on record, had
convicted the accused/appellant for the offence as referred to above and
sentenced him as stated earlier, which is challenged in this Criminal
Appeal.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
occurrence alleged to have taken place on 01.09.2018. After deliberation,
P.W.1/ the de facto complainant, who is the mother of P.W.2 victim girl
preferred a complaint before the respondent/police on the next day i.e.
02.09.2018, therefore, there was a delay of one day in preferring the
complaint. He would further submit that the victim girl is very well
known to the appellant and he is the local man and he has also helped for
her studies. Even though the appellant is well known person to the victim
Page No.3/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
girl, she has stated during trial before the learned Sessions Judge that she
is not aware of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to
establish the case that the appellant has committed the offence. The
evidence of the victim girl was not corroborated by any other witnesses.
He would further submit that the respondent/police have not examined
any of the neighbours of the victim girl and also not given sufficient
explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. Further, the doctor who
was examined as P.W.5 has stated that the victim girl not sustained any
injury. Therefore, the evidence of the doctor has not supported the case
of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Sessions Judge, only on
presumption come to the conclusion that the appellant found guilty for
the offence under Sections 451 IPC and 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act 2012 and
convicted and sentenced as referred to above, which warrants
interference of this Court.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the victim girl was examined as P.W.2 and she has clearly narrated the
facts that on 01.09.2018 at 5.30 p.m., while sleeping in her house, the
accused has suddenly entered into the house and touched her chest and
Page No.4/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
hugged her and immediately she woke up, the appellant moved from that
place. All of a sudden P.W.10, who is the sister of the victim girl entered
into the house. The appellant pushed down the victim girl and her sister
and ran away from that place. At that time, the parents of the victim girl
were not at house. After their arrival, the victim girl and her sister
informed the said occurrence, thereafter, they discussed about the same
with their family members and preferred the complaint before the
respondent police on 02.09.2018. Hence, the delay has been properly
explained by the complainant and the investigating officer. Further, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.2 and 10 clearly established
the case. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the prosecution has
rightly established the case.
7.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.
8.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.09.2018 at about 5.30
p.m., the mother of the victim girl was doing her usual chores. While, the
Page No.5/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
victim girl was sleeping at her house, the appellant on sexual intention,
touched her chest and hugged her, immediately she woke up, the
appellant moved from that place. All of a sudden P.W.10 sister of the
victim girl entered into the house, the appellant pushed her down and
escaped from that place. Subsequently, the victim girl and her sister
informed the said occurrence to their parents. Thereafter, they questioned
the appellant regarding the occurrence. The appellant threatened them by
using unparliamentary words and also with dire consequences and hence,
P.W.1 the de facto complainant preferred the complaint before the
respondent police on 02.09.2018. After receiving complaint, the
respondent police registered the case against the appellant for the offence
punishable under Sections 294(b), 451, 506(i) of IPC and Sections 7 r/w
8 of POCSO Act 2012. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted
and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 451 of IPC
and Sections 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act.
9.It is the specific case of the prosecution that at the time of
occurrence, the victim girl is aged about 13 years and was studying 8th
standard. Further, the prosecution examined the victim girl as P.W.2 and
she has clearly narrated the said incidents. In order to prove the same, the
Page No.6/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
sister of the victim girl was examined as P.W.10 and she has also
corroborated the same. Further, the delay has been properly explained by
the de-facto complainant and the Investigating Officer. Hence, the
prosecution has rightly established the case beyond all reasonable
doubts.
10. The minor girls, who were affected in the said occurrence
would not rush to the police station immediately and prefer the complaint
against the accused person. Naturally, they informed the same to their
parents, then only they preferred the complaint before the police station.
Further, the parents also think about the future of the minor girls and the
reputation of the family. Normally, they would take advise of the elders
in the village, however, if the culprit did not obey the advise of the
elders, then only they approach the police station. In this case, though the
family members of the victim girl questioned the appellant regarding the
occurrence, he threatened them with dire consequences, then only they
preferred the complaint on 02.09.2018. Therefore, delay in filing of the
complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the delay in
preferring the complaint was properly explained by P.W.1 de fato
complainant. Further, victim's statement was recorded under Section 164
Page No.7/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
Cr.P.C, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, in which, she has clearly
narrated the said facts.
11. Though the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that
the victim girl has not named the appellant, even though she is well
known to the appellant, who helped for her studies. On a careful reading
of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it reveals that while the
victim girl was sleeping in her house, the accused misbehaved with her,
therefore, non-mentioning of the name of the appellant is not fatal to the
case of the prosecution. P.W.10 has clearly corroborated the incident and
also identified the appellant. In this case, there is no injury or allegation
of penetrative sexual assault, therefore, medical examination of the
victim girl is not necessary. It is the case of the prosecution that the
victim girl has not sustained any injury, therefore, Doctor evidence is not
helpful to corroborate the evidence of the victim. Therefore, the evidence
of P.Ws.2 and 10 are enough to convict the accused. In a case of this
nature, the culprits taking advantage of the loneliness of the minor girls,
committing this type of crimes. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the neighbours would have seen the said
occurrence but they were not examined and the same cannot be accepted.
Page No.8/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
Therefore, mere non-examination of the independent witnesses is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution. 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.
12. Therefore, the evidence of the victim girl is enough to convict
the accused and the Court has to see whether there is any reason to
discard the evidence of the victim girl. In this case, no doubt arise for
the trustworthiness of the evidence of the victim girl and her sister. Even
before the complaint, the village elders and the victim girl family went to
the house of the appellant and questioned him about the incident.
However, the accused threatened them by using unparliamentary words,
then only, they preferred the complaint against the accused/appellant.
Further, the victim girl's statement was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and established the case in a
cogent manner.
13. Under these circumstances, this Court reappreciated the
evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 finds that no further corroboration is
necessary in cases of this nature. Therefore, the trial Court, as a fact
Page No.9/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
finding Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and arrived at
just conclusion, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence
under Section 451 IPC and Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act.
14. In fine, this Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed
in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Perambalur is confirmed.
15. It is seen from the records that the appellant/accused is at large
and therefore, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps so as to
immure him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
05.02.2021
ms
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Page No.10/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court,
Perambalur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arumbavur Police Station,
Perambalur District,
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records, if any, to the
High Court, Madras. | trial Court
Page No.11/12
Crl.A.No.713 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
CRL.A.No.713 of 2019
05.02.2021
Page No.12/12
