Madras High Court
Rajendran vs The State Represented By on 17 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
Rajendran ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Represented by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perambalur. ... Respondent
(Crime No.20 of 2018)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the
records made in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Neethimandram, Perambalur, dated 12.09.2019 and set-aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence, dated 12.09.2019 made in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2019, on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram, Perambalur.
2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime
No.20 of 2018, for the offences under Sections 11 (1) r/w 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For brevity "the POCSO Act). After the
investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Neethimandram, Perambalur. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of
Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charges
for the offence under Section 11 (1) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, against the appellant
and conducted the trial.
3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side,
the learned Judge, by Judgment dated 12.09.2019, convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 11 (1) of POCSO, Act, which is punishable under
Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
4. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused
/appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that based on the
information received from the unknown persons to the Child Help Line, the
father of the victim girl made a complaint before the respondent-Police against
the appellant and however, the person who said to have informed the incident
to the Child Help Line has not been examined. Further, the Investigating Officer
went to the School only after 10 days of the occurrence, and there was no
corroboration in the evidence of the victim girl. There was a misunderstanding
between the Headmaster and the appellant and due to which, they foisted a
false case against the appellant. Even the victim girl has not stated anything
that the appellant had committed any sexual assault on the victim girl and there
was no corroboration in the evidence and no eyewitness in this case and further,
no one has spoken about the scene of occurrence. The learned Judge, based on
presumption and also on the ground of sympathy, convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, and awarded maximum
punishment, which warrants interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the the appellant
was working as watchman in the school, in which, the victim girl was studying in
9th standard. The appellant had asked the victim girl to remove her shit, if she
agrees, he would pay the amount and the victim girl did not disclose the
occurrence to any one, except her friend Aarthi. The occurrence came to know
to the father of the victim girl, when he received a call from the Child Help
Line, stating that her daughter needs some counselling and asked him to come
to the Office, when he had gone to Child Line Office, the occurrence was
informed to the father of the victim girl, and on the advise of the Child Welfare
Officer, the father of the victim girl gave a police complaint against the
accused. Thereafter, the Police went to the School. After enquiry, the
respondent-Police found that the appellant had committed the offence and
immediately counselling was given to the victim girl and the statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate and the same was
marked as Ex.P8. A perusal of the evidence of the victim girl and the statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC., the prosecution has proved his case
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Judge, rightly appreciated the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
Section 11 (1) r/w 12 of POCSO Act and therefore, the learned Government
Advocate, prays for dismissal of the Appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2018, the father of the
victim girl, received a call stating that her daughter needs some counselling and
he was asked to come to their Office and when he had gone to the Child Help
Line Office, the occurrence was informed to the father of the victim girl viz., on
31.07.2018, at about 09.15 a.m., the appellant had asked the victim girl to
remove her shit, if she agrees, he would pay the amount and the victim girl did
not disclose the occurrence to any one; and on the advise of the Child Welfare
Officer, the father of the victim girl gave a police complaint against the
accused. Based on which, the respondent-Police registered a case against the
appellant for the offence under Section 11 (1) r/w 12 of POCSO Act.
Subsequently, the Investigation Officer, investigated the matter and laid a
charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram,
Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the
prosecution, 18 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and 11 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. After completion of the examination of the
prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant, the same
was denied as false and on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary
evidence was let in. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram,
Perambalur, after hearing the arguments on either side and considering all the
materials placed on record, found that the appellant is guilty and convicted and
sentenced, as referred above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
10. Since this Court is an Appellate Court and also final Court of fact
finding, has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to the conclusion
independently. A careful reading of statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., of the victim girl by the learned Magistrate, it could be seen that the
victim girl has narrated the entire occurrence that took place on 31.07.2018,
which was marked as Ex.P8 and also during evidence, she deposed the entire
occurrence. A reading of the evidence of the victim girl, who was examined as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
P.W.2, has clearly deposed that when she had gone to bathroom on 31.07.2018,
the accused was standing in front of the bathroom, asked her to remove her
shirt, if she accepts, he would pay amount and immediately, she returned to
class and informed the occurrence to her friend Aarthi, but she did not disclose
to any one in her family. Thereafter, an Officer came to School and he enquired
her in the Office room in the presence of the Headmaster, and she revealed the
occurrence to them. Thereafter, her father had come to School and the Officer
of Child Line, took the victim girl and her father into their Office and in that
Office, when they enquired, she again revealed the entire occurrence.
Thereafter, her father made a complaint and she was produced before the
learned Judicial Magistrate and statement was recorded, which was marked as
Ex.P8.
11. P.W.3, Child Line Officer had adduced evidence that on 01.08.2018,
he had received a call from Sudha stating that a person working as Watchman in
the Nakkasalem School, doing misbehaviour with the students, who are studying
in the school and based on the said information, he along with one Pattu, who is
handling the cases relating to victim child, and when they called to the number
from which, they received a call, it got switched off, till 04.08.2018, and since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
on 05.08.2018 Sunday, they didn't go to School and when they had gone to
06.08.2018, the victim girl was on leave and after that on 07.08.2018 and
08.08.2018, the Government announced Holidays, due to funeral of the then
Chief Minister. Thereafter, on 09.08.2018, they had gone to School and when
enquired the victim child, but she did not respond and thereafter, they got the
mobile number of her brother who was studying in the school, and called her
father and asked him to come to School, when he arrived, informed the
occurrence to him. Thereafter, they were taken to their office and in
their presence, the victim girl informed that on 31.07.2018, at about 09.15
a.m., the accused was standing in front of the bathroom, asking her to remove
the shirt, if she agrees, he would pay amount to her. Thereafter, counselling
was given to the victim girl and subsequently, her father made a complaint
before the respondent-Police.
12. A combined reading of the statement of the victim girl, which was
marked as Ex.P8, and the evidence of P.W.2, victim girl and also the evidence
of P.W.3 Child Welfare Officer, it could be seen that the appellant has
committed the offence under 11 (1) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, and the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
that there is no corroboration and there is no eyewitness, and the victim girl has
not stated the alleged occurrence before her father or her brother and even
before school teachers, therefore, the case has been falsely foisted against the
appellant, is not acceptable, as the Court cannot expect witnesses, especially in
POCSO Cases, since the culprit will wait for a chance taking advantage of the
loneliness of the victim girl, they used to commit these type of offenses, and
therefore, because the victim girl has not informed the occurrence to either her
parents or teachers and the court cannot come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved its case on the ground of non informing the incident
to anyone.
14. Further, there was no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.2.
Normally, in criminal cases, corroboration of witness is necessary, whereas,
offence under POCSO Act, the evidence of the victim girl is sufficient and the
Court cannot expect the eyewitness, since it is not the case of the prosecution
that the offense had taken place in the public place or in the presence of some
other eye witness. It is not in dispute, at the time of occurrence, the appellant
was working as a watchman and he was having access to the ladies bathroom.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
The victim girl was also attended the school on that day. Therefore, there is no
reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and there is no reason to
doubt about trustworthy of the victim girl and there is no necessity for the
victim girl to make false case against the watchman. If the evidence of sole
witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, conviction is permissible. In cases
of this nature presence of eyewitnesses are mostly improbable.
15. Therefore, under the circumstances, this Court also finds that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt and there is no
reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Neethimandram, Perambalur. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in
the Appeal and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and the
learned learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Neethimandram, Perambalur is directed
to secure the accused for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
17.02.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Mahila Neethimandram,
Perambalur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perambalur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.A.No.656 of 2019
17.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
