Madras High Court
Devaraj vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
Devaraj ... Appellant
Vs.
State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
A.W.P.S.Gingee, ... Respondent
(Crime No.11 of 2014)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Villupuram in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2015, dated 21.03.2017 and acquit the
appellant/accused.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Lakshmi Kalyani
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence, dated 21.03.2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2015, on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.
2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime
No.11 of 2014, for the offence punishable under Section 6 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, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Villupuram. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions
of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charge
for the offence punishable under Section 6 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 21.03.2017, convicted the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.
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 there is a
delay in registering the case and also sending the FIR into the Court. Though
P.W.1-eyewitness, who is the mother of the victim child, is alleged to have seen
the occurrence on 05.08.2014, she made a complaint only on 06.08.2014. Even
after the complaint, the FIR was sent to the Court with a delay and there was
no proper explanation for the said delay. Further, there are material
contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and admittedly, the victim
child was not examined in this case and as such non-examination of the victim
child is a fatal to the case of the prosecution.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that though statement
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the same was not marked in this
case, since there was a discrepancy in the complaint filed by the mother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
victim child and in order to suppress the fact, the statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was not marked, which is also a fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The doctor, who examined the victim child was examined as
P.W.6, and the medical evidence shows that there was a bleeding from the
vaginal part of the victim child after a lapse of 7 days, the alleged offence took
place on 05.08.2014, however, the child was produced before the Doctor only
on 11.08.2014 by the Police for medical examination and there is no deep
injuries in the private part of the victim child as per the doctor evidence and
therefore, the medical evidence is not believable. It is further contended that
when the mother of the victim child found that there were injuries in the
private part of the victim child, and if it is true, the victim child should have
been produced before the Medical Officer, immediately soon after the
occurrence, and however, in the case on hand, the victim child was produced
before the Medical Officer, only after 7 days. It is further submitted that there
was a motive to foist a false case against the appellant due to civil dispute.
Therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram, is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
7. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Police would
submit that the victim child, who is aged about 6 years at the time of
occurrence and mother is an eyewitness in this case and the appellant is the
known person and he committed the offence and due to non-availability of
anyone to help the mother, she filed the complaint on the next day. The
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded, and however, it was
not marked and mere non-marking of the said document, is not a fatal to the
case of the prosecution. The doctor's evidence is very clear that the victim
child sustained injuries on her private part and therefore, the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge, rightly convicted
the appellant and there is no merit in the Appeal and the Appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
9. The case of the prosecution is that when the victim child was
returning from school on 05.08.2014, at about 5.10 p.m., the accused Devaraj,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
who belongs to the same village carried her in his motorcycle, which was
noticed by the mother of the victim child. She immediately followed them and
saw the motorcycle parked in the occurrence place. When the mother searched
her daughter, saw the accused hiding the victim child with his lungi and was
lying on her. She heard the murmuring sound of her daughter and went near
them. Immediately, the accused raised up and fled away in his motorcycle.
When the mother enquired her daughter, she told that the accused Devaraj
forcibly took her in his motorcycle to the occurrence place, undressed her and
inserted his finger in her private part and laid on her. The mother noticed
bleeding from the private part of the child and then lodged Ex.P1 complaint
against the accused before the respondent-Police. Based on which, the
respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant for the offence
punishable under Sections 6 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the Investigating
Officer, investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet before the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram.
10. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1
to P.W.9 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 and 7 Material
Objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.7. After completion of the examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
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, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Villupuram, 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.
11. Since the victim child was only aged about 6 years, at the time of
occurrence, she was not examined as a witness. However, the mother of the
victim was examined as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she deposed that on
05.08.2014, when she was cow-herding, the accused Devaraj, who belongs to
the same village carried the victim child in his motorcycle, and she
immediately followed them and saw the motorcycle parked in the occurrence
place. When she went near the occurrence place, the accused asked her
(P.W.1) why did she come so long and then she (P.W.1) responded that she had
come to tie the cow of her brother-in-law and she heard the murmuring sound
of her daughter and saw her daughter was very tired and could not walk and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
coming near to her, by holding her underwear, panty and bag in her hand and
when she (P.W.1) asked her daughter, she revealed that the accused Devaraj
forcibly took her in his motorcycle to the occurrence place, undressed her and
inserted his finger into her private part and laid on her. Immediately, she
informed the occurrence to the parents of the accused and who in turn,
informed that the accused had gone for his work and thereafter, she took the
victim child to the house of the president of the Village and at that time, there
was bleeding from the private part of the victim child and it was noticed by the
people in the village. Thereafter, she was brought to the Hospital, since it was
night, the Hospital Authorities have informed her that if P.W.1 makes a
complaint before the Police Station, then only they would examine the victim
child and since it was midnight, she made a complaint on the next day viz.,
06.08.2014.
12. Subsequently, after registering F.I.R., the respondent-Police
investigated the mater and also produced the victim child before the doctor
for medical examination. The doctor, who examined the victim child was
examined as P.W.6. In his evidence, the doctor, had clearly stated that the
victim child sustained injury in her private part and he had also issued Ex.P6-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
medical certificate, in the report, it has been stated that there was an injury in
the private part of the victim child. Subsequently, the victim child was
produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the learned Magistrate has also
recorded the statement of the victim child, however the said statement was
not marked as a document.
13. According to the learned counsel, the statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was not marked as a document, which is a fatal to the
case of the prosecution. While deciding the case, the statement of the victim
child, which was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is necessary, however,
the learned Judge, has not taken any care for marking of the said document.
However, no doubt, on appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with and at that time, copies of all the
documents were served to the appellant and therefore, no prejudice would be
caused to the appellant for non-marking of the said statement, which was
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Further, statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
14. Since the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was
not marked as a document, this Court has called for the immaterial papers
relating to the present case, and on perusal of the same, the statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was very much available in the record,
but all the three stakeholders have not taken any care for marking of the said
document. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
and the evidence of the mother of the victim child P.W.1, it could be seen
that the accused had taken the victim child into secluded place and undressed
her and inserted his finger into her private part and laid on her. Therefore, this
Court finds that there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence of the
mother of the victim child and the statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. and there is no doubt about the trustworthiness of the victim child and
under the circumstances, the age of the victim child is only 6 years, and she
cannot be tutored by the prosecution for these type of offences.
15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is with
regard to delay in filing complaint and registering the case. However, the delay
in filing complaint, mere sending FIR belatedly to the Court may not be a sole
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
ground to believe or discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Mere
defect in the investigation also may not be a ground to disallow the case of the
victim and the appellant cannot be entitled for acquittal on that ground.
16. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the evidence of the doctor, who examined the victim child has given report
Ex.P6 and doctor had also stated that there is no deep injuries in the private
part, and as such, the evidence of P.W.6 doctor was also not supported the
case of the prosecution. P.W.1, the mother of the accused has clearly deposed
that she heard the murmuring sound of her daughter and saw her daughter was
very tired and could not walk and coming near to her, by holding her
inner-wear, panty and bag in her hand and when she (P.W.1) asked her
daughter, she revealed that that the accused Devaraj forcibly took her in his
motorcycle to the occurrence place, undressed her and inserted his finger into
her private part and laid on her, and as such, the prosecution has proved that
the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO
Act. Depth of penetration is immaterial, mere touching of private part with
male organ would be sufficient so as to constitute the offence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
17. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer the Sections 3 (b) and 5
(m) of the POCSO Act:-
"Section 3. Penetrative sexual assault:-
(b) If he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the
body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of
the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other
person; or
5. Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault:-
(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child
below twelve years;"
A reading of the evidence of the mother of the victim child P.W.1 and the
evidence of the doctor-P.W.6 and report Ex.P6, and Section 3 (b) and 5 (m) of
the POCSO Act, it is very clear that the appellant has committed the offence
punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is to be noted that the evidence of
interested witnesses, if found to have credit worthiness, conviction could be
based on an uncorroborated testimony. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
18. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
there was a motive to foist a false case against the appellant. In this case,
there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of the mother of the
victim child. Further, there was no necessity to foist such a serious offence
against the appellant by spoiling the future of the victim child. It is pertinent
to mention here that parent of the victim child need not go to that extent by
spoiling the future of the victim child. Therefore, the above contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. Further, there was no reason to
discard the evidence of the mother of the victim child. Normally, corroboration
of witness is necessary, whereas, offence under POCSO Act, the evidence of the
victim girls are sufficient. In this case, since the age of the victim child was
only 6 years, therefore, she was not examined as a witness and the Court
cannot expect the eyewitness, since it is not the case of the prosecution that
the occurrence had taken place in the presence of some other eye witness.
However, admittedly, in the case on hand, the mother is an eyewitness and in
her evidence, she had clearly deposed that she had seen the victim child with
the appellant, when she (P.W.1) asked her daughter, she (victim child)
revealed that the accused Devaraj forcibly took her in his motorcycle to the
occurrence place, undressed her and inserted his finger into her private part
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
and laid on her. Medical evidence also corroborates the same. Further, the
defense has not established that for what reason, they foisted a false case
against the appellant. Though the appellant had taken the defense of motive
behind the complaint, but however, it has not been established in the manner
known to law.
19. Further, under Section 29 of POCSO Act, there is a presumption
against the accused, even though it is rebuttable presumption, but the accused
has not rebutted the presumption in the manner known to law.
20. 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, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Villupuram. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in
the Appeal and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
(i) It is pertinent to make a comment regarding the
investigation/trial done in this case. The occurrence has taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
place on 05.08.2014, no doubt, the complaint was given only on
the next day, viz., 06.08.2014, whereas, the victim child was
produced before P.W.6-Doctor, for medical examination only on
11.08.2014, with a delay of 6 days from the date of filing the
complaint. Even though the mother of the victim child, in Ex.P1
complaint, dated 06.08.2014 has stated that there was an injury
on the private part of the victim child, aged, about 6 years, the
Investigating Officer has acted lethargically and has not produced
the victim child before the Medical Officer for medical
examination immediately, soon after filing the complaint. Further,
though the Investigating Officer had produced the victim child
before the learned Magistrate for recording statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the same was not marked as document and
the Investigating Officer has not properly done the investigation
and therefore, failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of
POCSO Act viz., Section 24 to 27 of POCSO Act, and also not
properly gave instructions to the learned Public Prosecutor.
(ii) The learned Magistrate, who recorded the statement of
the victim child, was examined as P.W.8. Though the Investigating
Officer has taken steps to record the statement of the victim
child, the learned Public Prosecutor has not taken any steps to
mark the statement of the victim child, which was recorded by
P.W.8, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also not examining the
victim child as a witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
(iii) Even, the learned Judge, who dealt with the case, has
not actively participated in the trial. If she would have actively
participated in the trial, definitely, she would have raised a
question for non marking of statement, which was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim child by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Judge has acted only as mute
spectator, and she has recorded mechanically whatever the
learned Public Prosecutor has stated.
(iv) If at all the Investigating Officer actively participated
in the trial, she should have guided the learned Public Prosecutor
to bring all facts and marked all the documents before the trial
Court. Even though, proceedings of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Villupuram, authorizing the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, to record the statement of the victim child was
marked as Ex.P16, and that the learned Judicial Magistrate, who
recorded the statement of the victim child was examined as
P.W.8, they have failed to mark the statement recorded under
Section Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from the victim child. Further, the
victim child has not been produced before the Medical Officer for
medical examination immediately soon after the receipt of Ex.P1
complaint. Thus, from the above, it could be seen that all the
stakeholders, the Investigating Officer, learned Public Prosecutor
and the learned trial Judge, who conducted the trial have not
actively participated in the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
(v) This Court has come across several cases and in most of
the cases, with regard to POCSO Act, this Court has found lot of
discrepancies in the investigation / trial done by the stakeholders.
Since the case is relating to POCSO Act, the stakeholders should be
vigilant and due diligent while preforming their duties.
(vi) It is to be noted that in some cases, the Investigating
Officer, not even registering the FIR immediately, even after
receipt of complaint; and also sending the FIR with a delay to the
Court; and non-sending the victim child immediately to the Doctor
for examination and also there is a delay in sending the victim
child for recording statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before
the learned Magistrate. Further, the Investigating Officer, is not
taking steps to mark the statement which was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as a document, and even, the learned
Public Prosecutor is also not taking steps to mark the statement as
a document and the learned Judge, who deals with the POCSO
Cases, are not taking steps to mark the documents. Even, in some
of the cases, this Court has directed the Authorities concerned for
taking necessary action against the stakeholders, who did not
actively participate in the investigation/trial.
(vii) In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
view that a necessary training to be provided to all the
stakeholders, who are dealing with POCSO Cases. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
the Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Road,
Mylapore, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600-004, is directed to sensitize
the matter, and the Director General of Police, the Director of
Prosecution, and the Director of State Judicial Academy are
directed to impart a training programme to those persons who are
dealing with POCSO Cases, forthwith.
22.02.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
Note: The Registry is further directed to return photo copies
of Immaterial Records to the concerned Court.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Villupuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
A.W.P.S.Gingee,
4. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Road, Mylapore,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600-004.
5. The Director of Prosecution,
Puddupettai Street,
Alandur, Chennai.
6.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Judicial Academy,
Greenways Road, R.A.Puram,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.A.No.337 of 2019
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
