Madras High Court
Nanjappan vs State Represented By on 17 October, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2024:MHC:3569
Crl.A.No.340 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 30.08.2024
Pronounced on 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.A.No.340 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.10101 of 2024
Nanjappan ...Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perur, Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.09/2018) ...Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the records and set aside the judgment and
conviction dated 30.03.2021 made in Special Calender Case No.35 of
2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
POCSO Act, Coimbatore and acquit the appellant from charge.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Prahalad Bhan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 24
Crl.A.No.340 of 2021
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
The charge against the appellant/accused is that on 06.03.2018 at
about 08.30 P.M., he had sexually assaulted a 4½ years child by inserting
his finger into her vagina and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act').
Subsequently, on 07.03.2018, when the child's mother had questioned the
accused, he threatened her stating that if she gives any police complaint,
he would kill her husband and therefore, he was also charged of having
committed the offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC). The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,
Coimbatore, on the strength of oral and documentary evidences before it,
had found the accused guilty of having committed the offences and
thereby convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for the
remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.55,000/-, in default of
payment to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence
under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as well as to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of which to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 506(i) IPC, through its judgment passed in Special Calender Case
No.35 of 2019 dated 30.03.2021. The judgment of the Trial Court is
assailed in the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are
addressed according to their ranks in the trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is a Tailor
by profession and that the victim is the adopted child of P.W.1 and P.W.3.
On 06.03.2018, when the victim child was playing in her neighbour Ayya
@ Pattappan's house, the accused had come there and committed sexual
assault by inserting his finger into her vagina. Thereafter, the child had
come home and informed her mother. When her mother had examined
her vagina, she found it to be swollen and red in colour. She then
informed her husband when he came home in the night. In continuation
of this incident, the next day, when she had questioned the accused, he
threatened her that he would kill her husband. Fearing that the accused
might cause some harm to them, she had not reported to the Police. She
had then taken the child to Roopa Hospital. They had thereafter given a
complaint to the Police narrating the occurrence, which was registered in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crime No.9 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018.
4. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police had
filed the final report, charging the accused of having committed the
offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Act and 506(i) IPC.
The Trial Court had furnished the copies of the relevant documents
relating to the charges under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter framed
charges under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and
506(i) IPC against the accused.
5. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,
13 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined, 12 documents Exs.P1 to
P12 were marked on the prosecution side. The defence had examined 3
witnesses, D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 3 documents, Exs.D1 to D3 on
their side.
6. To establish the case of the prosecution, the following witnesses
were examined:-
6.1. Banumathi (P.W.1) and Sridhar (P.W.3) are the mother and
father of the victim child (P.W.2) respectively. As per their statements, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
victim child was born on 13.11.2013 and they had legally adopted her
when she was three months old. Both of them speak about the sexual
assault committed by the accused on their child. P.W.1 and P.W.3 state
about the incident, as narrated by their daughter. After the occurrence was
revealed to the Child Help Line Centre, the child was produced before the
Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. The prosecution had marked the complaint given by P.W.1 to the
Police as Ex.P.1, the birth certificate of the victim child as Ex.P.2 and the
statement made by the victim child before the Judicial Magistrate under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.P.3, through P.W.1.
6.2. P.W.2 is the victim child, who was aged about 4½ years at the
time of the incident. According to her statement, the neighbour Tailor had
taken her to Pattan Thatha's house by telling her that he would give her
Marudhani. Therein, he laid her on the bed and after removing her panty,
he had inserted his finger inside her vagina. She then states that she bit
his hand and ran away from that place. After reaching home, she went to
sleep and when she woke up, she informed her mother, when she
developed pain in her vagina.
6.3. Anjaline (P.W.5) and Umadevi (P.W.8) are the Counsellor and
Co-ordinator of the Child Help Line Centre. As per their statements,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
when they had received a secret information on 16.03.2018, they went to
the house of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and conducted an inquiry. They then took
the victim child to the Child Welfare Committee and on their advice,
P.W.1 had given a complaint to the Police.
6.4. Gandhi (P.W.7) is the landlord of P.W.1 and P.W.3. According
to him, he had identified the accused, who was present in the Court and
stated that his name was Nanjappan and that he was also known as
'Chinnasamy', as well as 'Tailor'.
6.5. Dr.Saravanapriya (P.W.10), who had examined the victim child
on 26.10.2018, had noticed that the victim child's hymen was ruptured
and that there was no sign of recent sexual assault. The medical
certificate of the victim child was marked as Ex.P.6 and the Medical
Memo issued by the Police was marked as Ex.P.7 through P.W.10.
6.6. Tmt.Sharmila, Additional Mahila Court Judge, who had
recorded the statement of the victim child under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
(Ex.P.8), was examined as P.W.11.
6.7. Amutha (P.W.12) is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the
investigation. As per her statement, on recording of the FIR (Ex.P.9), she
had prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P.10). Thereafter, when she was of the
opinion that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
committed, she had altered the offences through an alteration report
(Ex.P.11) for the offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act and Section 506(i) IPC.
6.8. Dr.Sasikumar (P.W.13) is the Doctor, who had subsequently
given treatment to the victim child on 19.03.2018 for chest congestion
and at that point of time, the incident of sexual assault made 13 days
before, was revealed to him, which incident was recorded by him in the
treatment case sheet (Ex.P.12).
7. On completion of the trial and when the incriminating
circumstances found in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses were
put forth to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., he denied the
same claiming that it was a false case and that he intended to examine his
own witnesses.
8. On the side of the defence, the accused had examined his
daughter Saranyadevi (D.W.1), his brother Ayyasamy (D.W.3) and one
Perumalsamy (D.W.2), who hails from his Village, who all testified that
the accused was an Agriculturist by avocation and not a Tailor and that
there was previous enmity between the complainants' family and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused.
9. On the strength of the evidences before it, the Trial Court had
found the accused guilty of having committed the offence of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault, as well as criminal intimidation and thereby
convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as stated above.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that
this is a case of wrong identity of the accused. According to him, the
child had not mentioned the name of the accused, but referred to him only
as a Tailor. On the strength of the evidences adduced on his side, he
would submit that the accused was only an Agriculturist by avocation and
not a Tailor and therefore, the prosecution had wrongly proceeded against
him. He further submitted that there was an inordinate delay of 10 days in
giving the complaint. Though the occurrence had taken place on
06.03.2018, the complaint came to be given only on 16.03.2018, which
delay on the very first information is fatal. He also submitted that the
child was subjected to medical examination after 13 days from the
incident. Hence, the entire delay creates a suspicion with regard to the
allegation of sexual assault and creates doubts on the medical evidences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
itself. He further added that the witnesses have given different
explanation touching upon these delays and in view of these
contradictions, the prosecution's case itself is to be disbelieved. By
referring to the pre-existing enmity between the families, as spoken to by
the defence witnesses, he submitted that the presumption under Section
30 is dangerous and the possibility of foisting a false case against the
accused cannot be ruled out.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
placed reliance on Section 30 of the POCSO Act with regard to the
existence of the culpable mental state on the part of the accused and
submitted that since the child was 4½ years on the date of occurrence, the
accused is deemed to have committed the offence intentionally. He
further pointed out to the evidence let in by the victim child before the
learned Additional District Judge under Section 164 C.rP.C., as well as
her testimony during the course of trial. From the evidences of the child,
he would submit that the child had cogently spoken about the incident
both in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P.3), as well as in her oral
testimony. With regard to the identity of the accused, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the evidence of P.W.7, who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
states that the accused, who was present in the Court, is also referred to as
a Tailor. Likewise, he also pointed out to the evidence of P.W.1, who
clarifies that the accused was also known as a Tailor. Thus, he would state
that, merely because the child has not referred the name of the accused, it
would not absolve him from the charges.
12. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions
made by the respective counsels and have perused the original records
available.
13. The mother of the child has been examined as P.W.1 and
through her, the child's birth certificate (Ex.P.2) was marked, which
evidences that the child was born on 13.11.2013. Ex.P.5 is the Adoption
Deed, through which P.W.1 and P.W.3 had adopted the child (P.W.2) as
their own daughter. Ex.P.5 also establishes that the child was born on
13.11.2013. The Doctors (P.W.10 and P.W.13), who had examined the
child, also refer to her age as 4½ years, at the time of occurrence. The
defence could neither rebut the sanctity of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5, nor could
discredit the oral testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.10 and P.W.13,
touching upon the age of the child. On a cumulative appreciation of all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
these evidences, it can be safely held that, as on the date of the
occurrence, the child, since born on 13.11.2013, was aged about 4½
years.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the accused made a
submission that this is a case of wrong identity of the accused, since the
child has not mentioned his name, but referred to one Tailor and since the
accused was only an Agriculturist by avocation and not a Tailor, he has
been wrongly implicated in this case. According to the oral testimony of
P.W.1, the accused is a next door neighbour and after identifying him in
the Court, she stated that the accused was also referred to as a Tailor.
P.W.7 is the landlord of P.W.1 and P.W.3, who in his oral testimony, had
clarified, both during chief and cross examinations, that the accused is
also referred to as a Tailor. His oral testimonies before the Trial Court
read as follows:-
“Kjy; tprhuiz?
vdf;F bfhz;lak;ghisak; brhe;j
Ch;/ fuothtp vd;w Chpy; jw;nghJ
FoapUf;fpnwd;/ ghDkjp. _jud; Mfpnahh;
2 tUlkhf v';fs; tPl;oy;
FoapUf;fpwhh;fs;/ mth;fs; 4. 5
tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ xU bgz; FHe;ijia
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vLj;J tsh;j;J tUfpwhh;fs;/ tPl;oy;
FoapUg;gthpd; Fhe;ijia bla;yh; jg;ghf
ele;J bfhz;ljhf nfs;tpg;gl;nld;/ M$h;
vjphp jhd; me;j bla;yh; mth; bgah;
e";rg;gd;/ rpd;drhkp vd;Wk; Tg;gpLthh;fs;/
FWf;F tprhuiz?
ehd; fle;j 4 tUlkhf fuothtp
fpuhkj;jpy; FoapUf;fpnwd;/ ehd; 4
khjj;jpw;F xU Kiw
bfhz;lak;ghisaj;jpw;F nghntd;/ bla;yh;
bgah; rpd;drhkp/ M$h; vjphp jhd;
rpd;drhkp/ v';fs; Chpy; bts;sp';fphp vd;w
xU bla;yh; ,Uf;fpwhh;/ bts;sp';fphp
bla;yh; fil bkapd; nuhl;oy; cs;sJ/
ehd; nfhtpy; tpnrrj;jpw;F nghd nghJ
nfs;tpg;gl;nld;/ ahh; brhd;dhh;fs; vd;W
bjhpahJ/”
(Emphasis supplied by us)
15. The victim child was examined as P.W.2. In her oral testimony
before the Trial Court, she has categorically stated that the next door
Tailor had sexually assaulted her. In her statement made under Section
164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.3) also, she narrates the same incident and refers to the
aggressor as Nanjappan, which is the real name of the accused. In the
light of these evidences, it stands clarified that the reference made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
child to the aggressor as a Tailor, would only refer to the accused and
hence, it cannot be said to be a case of mistaken identity.
16. The learned counsel for the accused raised a further ground
stating that there was an inordinate delay in making the complaint.
According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on
06.03.2018 at 07.00 P.M. in the house of one Pattan, which is next to the
victim's house. After the occurrence, P.W.1 would state that the child had
dinner and went to sleep. Thereafter, at about 11.30 P.M., she woke up
crying and got down and passed urine there itself. Subsequently, P.W.3
would state that he had come home around 10.00 to 10.30 P.M., after
finishing his work and when he found that the child had passed urine, he
had enquired her, at which point of time, the child had narrated the sexual
assault by the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 claims to have given a
complaint to the Police, which was not taken up and that she then took
the help of the Village Headmen and approached the Child Help Line
Centre, through whom, she had later given the complaint. P.W.3 would
state that on the next day i.e., on 07.03.2018, he had taken his child to
Roopa Hospital, where the child was given first aid treatment. Thereafter,
the Child Help Line Centre had received the information about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
incident and had inquired him. In this background, P.W.1 had given a
complaint on 16.03.2018.
17. P.W.5 is the Child Help Line Counsellor and P.W.8 is its Co-
ordinator. As per the version of these two witnesses, on 16.03.2018, the
Child Help Line Centre had received a secret information about the
sexual assault on the child and accordingly, they conducted an inquiry
with the parents, as well as the child. After this they had produced the
child before the Child Welfare Committee and thereafter advised the
parents to file a complaint. In this background, the complaint (Ex.P.1)
was made on 16.03.2018 at All Women Police Station, Perur,
Coimbatore. In the complaint (Ex.P.1), P.W.1 would state that after the
incident occurred on 06.03.2018, she had seen the accused on the next
day at 06.00 A.M. When she confronted him about the earlier day's
incident, he threatened to kill her husband if she makes any Police
complaint. In view of the threat, she claims to have kept silent. However,
the Child Help Line Centre had somehow received the information about
the sexual assault on the child on 14.03.2018. They had, after making
inquiry with them, produced the child before the Child Welfare
Committee. In this background, they had advised P.W.1 to give a Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complaint, which was made on 16.03.2018.
18. On an overall appraisal of the statements of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5
and P.W.8, there appears to be some plausible explanation as to the delay
in giving a complaint to the concerned Police Station. There are, however,
certain minor contradictions. With regard to the claim of P.W.1 and P.W.3
that they had taken the victim child to Roopa Hospital on 07.03.2018 is
concerned, it is not supported by any evidence. Hence, their claim that the
child was taken on that particular day to the Hospital, cannot be
considered as a proved fact.
19. Though P.W.1 claims that she attempted to give a complaint on
07.03.2018 at the jurisdictional Police Station, the complaint was not
taken as the Inspector of Police was unavailable at that point of time.
Thereafter, it is not known as to why P.W.3 did not give any complaint till
16.03.2018. However, the evidences of P.W.5 and P.W.8 would clearly
establish that the Child Help Line Centre had received an information
about the sexual assault on the victim child, pursuant to which they had
come to the house of the victim child and made inquiries. Accordingly,
the child was produced before the Child Welfare Committee and on their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
advise, P.W.1 had given a written complaint (Ex.P.1) on 16.03.2018.
20. It is a settled proposition of law that merely because there is
some delay in making the complaint, the prosecution's case need not be
disbelieved, whenever there is satisfactory explanation. In the case of
Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2024) 2 SCC 176, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, in cases where delay occurs, it has
to be tested anvil of other attending circumstances. If on an overall
consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the Court that
delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be
sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution's case. However, if the delay is not
satisfactorily explained and it appears to the Court that the cause for the
delay had been necessitated to frame the accused, then such a delay
would form a part of several factors to vitiate the conviction. In the
instant case, the delay requires to be looked into among the other
attending circumstances, for which purpose, we shall look into the
evidences touching upon the commission of offence.
21. P.W.2 is the victim child, who speaks about the sexual assault
committed on her by the accused. When she was produced before P.W.11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had
narrated the incident as follows:
“e";rg;gd; 6k; njjp kUjhzp
jUfpnwd; vd;W brhy;yp vd;id ma;ah
tPl;ow;F miHj;Jr; brd;W ma;ah tPl;L
fl;oypy; gLf;f $l;oia fHw;wp bghr;ir
(bgz;dqWg;g[) ,uz;L tpuy;fshy;
nehz;odhh;/ ehd; typf;fpwJ vd;W
fj;jpndd; vd; thia if itj;J
K:odhh;/ ehd; e";rg;gh ifia
foj;Jtpl;L tPl;ow;F Xo ngha;tpl;nld;/”
22. During the time of trial, she had, in a cogent manner,
corroborated her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without any
contradiction. A perusal of the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.3 also reveal
the narration of facts of the incident by the victim to them, which was in a
like manner, without contradictions. Though P.W.2 was cross examined
during trial, the defence could not discredit her statements in any manner,
with regard to the manner in which the sexual assault had taken place.
23. P.W.10 is the Doctor to whom the Police had referred the victim
child for medical examination. According to P.W.10, she examined the
victim child on 26.10.2018 and issued the medical certificate (Ex.P.6). As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
per her version, there was a old healed hymen tear at 6”O clock position.
24. P.W.13 is another Doctor, who had treated the victim child for
chest congestion on 19.03.2018. When the child was produced before the
Doctor, he was informed about the sexual assault on the child about 13
days back. The victim was then examined by a female Doctor in his
presence and had found her vagina to be swollen.
25. On an overall consideration of the statements made by the
victim child, both under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as during the course
of trial read with the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3, to whom the
victim had narrated the incident in addition to the statements made by the
Doctors (P.W.10 and P.W.13), the fact that the accused had sexually
assaulted the victim child on 06.03.2018 by penetrating his finger into her
vagina, stands established, beyond reasonable doubts.
26. When the commission of offence itself has been fully
established, which is the important circumstance to prove the culpability
of the accused, the non-explanation of the delay in making the complaint
may not be fatal and it cannot be said that owing to the delay, the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had been foisted into the case.
27. The Trial Court had appreciated all the evidences against the
accused with regard to the occurrence and had rightly found him to be
guilty of the offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act.
28. However, insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is
concerned, though P.W.1 had stated in her complaint (Ex.P.1) that on
07.03.2018 at about 06.00 A.M., when she had confronted the accused
about the occurrence, she claims that the accused had threatened to kill
her husband if she gives a police complaint. However, during the course
of trial, she had not made any reference of such criminal intimidation by
the accused. No other witnesses speak about this intimidation on the part
of the accused. In the absence of any other evidence, it requires to be held
that the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 506(i)
IPC has not been established and thus, the accused is entitled to be
acquitted for this charge.
29. The consequential issue that arises for consideration is as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
whether the trial Court was justified in imposing the maximum
punishment of imprisonment for life for the reminder of his natural life?
30. In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648, as well as in several other
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that imposition
of sentence should commensurate with the nature and gravity of the
crime, which shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The relevant portion reads as follows:-
“84. Sentencing is an important task in the
matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the
criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate,
just and proportionate sentence commensurate with
the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in
which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime.
The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin
objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and
correction. What sentence would meet the ends of
justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the
gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of
the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31. In the instant case, though we find that the evidence of the
victim child cannot be disbelieved, there are certain circumstances which
may be relevant for the purpose of interfering with the sentence imposed
by the trial Court. According to P.W.1 and P.W.3, both of them claim to
have taken the child to Roopa Hospital on 07.03.2018. However, the
prosecution has neither examined the Doctor of Roopa Hospital who
treated the victim nor any medical evidence touching upon such treatment
was produced before this Court. Had the prosecution established this
material fact before this Court, the proximity between the occurrence and
the injuries of sexual assault on the child could have been more explicit.
32. Had the prosecution let in evidence with regard to the first aid
rendered to the child at Roopa Hospital, the accused may have had the
benefit of placing reliance on such medical evidence and could have
sought for modification of the charge offence into such other offence of a
lesser gravity. Though the failure on the part of the prosecution to
substantiate the first medical treatment at Roopa Hospital has not been
substantiated, it will not absolve the accused from his culpability to the
crime for the offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, in view of our findings in the preceding portions of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment. However, these factors would certainly be relevant to interfere
with the sentence awarded by the trial Court. In this background, the
maximum sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant could
be reduced.
33. Section 6 of the POCSO Act came to be amended through Act
25 of 2019, with effect from 16.08.2019, by increasing the minimum
punishment from 10 years to 20 years. The occurrence in the present case
was on 06.03.2018, which is prior to the amendment. In these given
circumstances, we are of the view that the punishment awarded by the
trial Court, for the offence under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act, could be reduced to the minimum sentence of 10 years, as
provided in the pre-amended provision of Section 6.
34. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial Court,
insofar as holding the appellant guilty of having committed the offence
under Section 506(i) IPC, is set aside and he is acquitted from the said
charge. Insofar as the charge under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of
the POCSO Act is concerned, the judgment of the trial Court holding him
guilty of having committed this offence is upheld. However, the sentence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of life imprisonment imposed on him, stands modified and reduced to 10
years. The fine amount of Rs.55,000/-, in default of payment to undergo
one year rigorous imprisonment, stands confirmed. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off as per
Section 428 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands Partly
Allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
17.10.2024
Index:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
Speaking order
hvk
Note: Issue order copy on 17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
hvk
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under POCSO Act,
Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perur, Coimbatore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Pre-delivery judgment made in
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
