Madras High Court
Mentioned” At The Instance Of The ... vs State Rep By Its on 11 August, 2023
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
This matter is listed today under the caption “For Being
Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an order
was passed by this Court on 11.08.2023, in Crl.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023. In
the cause title portion of the order, the respondent's address has been
wrongly mentioned as 'State Rep by its, The Inspector of Police,
Thirupparankundram All Women Police Station, Madurai City. (Crime
No.15 of 2021).' instead of 'State Rep by its, The Inspector of Police,
Madurai Town All Women Police Station, Madurai City. (Crime No.3 of
2020)', and seeks necessary corrections in the said order.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the
order, dated 11.08.2023 passed by this Court.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
State has no objection to make correction in the said order.
5.Since it is a typographical error, the Registry is directed to make
necessary corrections and issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned by
marking a copy to the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,
Madurai.
26.09.2023
dss
Issue order copy on : 27.09.2023
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.82 of 2023
Muthuramalingam : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State Rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Thirupparankundram All Women Police Station,
Madurai City.
(Crime No.15 of 2021) : Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 1374(2) of Crl.P.C, to
call for the records and set aside the judgment of the trial Court in
Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2020 dated 30.08.2022 on the file of the Special Court for
the Exclusive Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
Cases cum Sessions Judge, Madurai, and allow this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar
Government
Advocate (Criminal Side)
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment
passed by the Exclusive Trial of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act Cases cum Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Spl.S.C.No.17 of
2020 dated 30.08.2022.
2.The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2020 on
the file of the Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases cum Sessions Judge, Madurai,
filed this appeal challenging the conviction under Sections 11(i) and 12 of
the POCSO Act, and sentence imposed upon him to undergo three years
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo 6
months Imprisonment and compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim girl.
3. Case of the prosecution:
The appellant is a mason and he is living in Pandiselvi
Compound, Kanatchi Amman Cross Street, Mela Anuppanadi, Madurai. In
the said compound, number of persons are residing. According to the
prosecution, on 25.01.2020 at 4.00 pm., when the victim girl and the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
girls were playing in the compound, the appellant caused sexual harassment
to the victim girl by lifting his Dhoti and showing his private part to her. So,
the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint from PW.1, registered a
case in Crime No.3 of 2020 against the appellant for the offence under
Sections 11(i) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The investigation officer-PW.13, after arresting the appellant
on 26.01.2020 itself, conducted investigation, collected material documents
and filed final report before the Special Court for the offence under Sections
11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act. The learned trial Judge, after framing necessary
charge, questioned the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and
stood for trial.
5. On the side of the prosecution to prove the charges, PW.1 to
PW.13 were examined and Ex.1 to 14 were marked and also Court
document, Ex.C1 also marked. Thereafter, put the incriminative materials
available against the accused in the evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
accused denied the same as false and posted for the defence evidence and
the appellant never adduced any defence evidence and documentary
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
6.The learned trial Judge, considering the above documents and
submission of the accused and the Public Prosecutor, convicted the
appellant for the offence under Sections 11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act, stating
that the prosecution proved the case that the appellant lifted his Dhoti and
shown his private parts to the victim girl and thereby, he committed the
offence of sexual harassment and imposed the sentence as stated above by
passing the impugned judgment, dated 30.08.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.17 of
2020.
7. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this appeal on the
grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according
to the prosecution, when the victim girl was playing with her friends
namely, Siva, Sakthi, Viswa and Dhanam, the appellant said to have lifted
his dhoti and shown his private parts to all and asked them to come inside
the house. So, the non-examination of the said friends clearly shows that the
prosecution version is doubtful and the victim statement is not trustworthy
and without any corroboration. So, he seeks for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
9.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the
prosecution clearly proved the charge against the appellant. The evidence of
P.W.2, the victim girl is cogent and trustworthy. She also immediately
informed the occurrence to her mother P.W.1 and the other witnesses. So,
the prosecution clearly proved the sexual harassment of the accused that
lifting his dhoti and shown his private part to the victim girl. The non-
examination of the other witnesses is not material when the evidence of
P.W.2 is cogent and trustworthy. So, the Public Prosecutor prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
10.This Court considered the rival submission and perused the
records.
11. Now, the only question arises for consideration in this case is
whether the conviction passed by the learned trial Judge is sustained on the
basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution?
12.From the evidence of the victim girl, it is clear that the
appellant lifted his dhoti and shown his private part to the victim girl. There
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
was no motive is alleged against the victim girl to implicate the appellant in
the above occurrence at the cost of her reputation. P.W.2 clearly stated the
occurrence and the same was immediately informed to P.W.1. Even though,
complaint has been immediately made before the Avaniyapuram Police
Station, Madurai District, they refused to take the same. So, P.W.1 went to
the respondent jurisdictional All Women Police Station on the next day
Morning itself i.e., on 26.01.2020 at 07.00 a.m. So, the complaint was
properly made and investigation was conducted in fair manner and final
report was also filed.
13.In view of the above circumstances, this Court find no reason
to disbelieve the evidence of the victim and her mother P.W.1. The victim
girl clearly deposed the fact to constitute the offence under Section 11(i) of
POCSO Act and hence, the learned trial Judge is rightly convicted the
appellant under Sections 11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act. Accordingly, the
question arises for consideration in this case answered against the appellant.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is 53 years old and he is a mason and there was no previous
antecedents. Now, he shifted his residence from the said compound and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
is continuously in jail for the past one year. So, he prays for reduction of
sentence of imprisonment. He also submit that he is ready to file
undertaking affidavit that he would not entered into the said compound and
he would not further commit the similar offence.
15.Considered the above circumstances, the conviction passed by
the trial Court for the offence under Sections 11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act is
hereby confirmed. Insofar as the sentence for the offence under Sections
11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act, is concerned, this Court is inclined to reduce
the sentence from 3 years Imprisonment to 1 ½ years Imprisonment.
16.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
11.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD)No.82 of 2023
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
dss
To
1.The Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act Cases cum Sessions Judge, Madurai,
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupparankundram All Women Police Station,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in
CRL.A(MD).No.82 of 2023
11.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
