Madras High Court
A.Chandrasekaran vs The State Rep. By on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.15 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.15 of 2023
A.Chandrasekaran ... Appellant
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
Crime No.3 of 2016 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the judgment dated 09.09.2022 made in
Special S.C.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri and set aside the same by allowing this
criminal appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.K.N.Ganeshan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, made in Special S.C.No.16 of 2016, thereby
convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 9
(c)(f)(m) r/w 10 (1 count) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged
by the victim, the Block Elementary Educational Officer conducted
enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent registered
the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the Headmaster of the
Mukkulam Panchayat Union Primary School, Dharmapuri District,
committed sexual assault on the minor victim girls who are studying
third and fourth standard by kissing them and touching their breast and
private parts. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in
Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A)
of IPC and Sections 9(f) 5 counts, 9(m) 5 counts of the POCSO Act.
3. On the side of the prosecution they had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.23 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. On the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
accused, no one was examined and marked one document as Ex.D.1. On
perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the
accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 9(c), 9(f), 9(m)
r/w. 10 of POCSO Act for one count and sentenced him to undergo five
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by
the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that on the enquiry report conducted by P.W.8 who was the President of
the Parents Teachers Association, the respondent registered the FIR. It
was lodged due to the previous enmity between them in respect of
handling funds sanctioned for the school. The appellant did not allow
P.W.8 to misuse the school funds. Therefore, P.W.8 insisted the school
children to lodge false complaint and on that basis, they conducted
enquiry and submitted report. Though the victim girls P.W.1 to P.W.5
made statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the appellant
had committed sexual assault on them, while they were examining as
P.W.1 to P.W.5, P.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 turned hostile and they failed to
support the case of the prosecution. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
was threatened to the core to give false evidence in such a way before the
trial Court. In fact, there were contradictions between the statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the deposition before the
Court below. Further, the deposition of P.W.3 is not corroborated with
any other evidence. P.W.1, 2, 4 and 6 deposed about the good conduct of
the appellant and no such sexual assault committed by the appellant
towards the students. In fact, none of the parents of the victim children
came forward to lodge complaint. The case has been registered only on
the basis of the discreet enquiry conducted by P.W.8 and the report.
Therefore, when the evidence placed by the prosecution failed to prove
the guilty of the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn under Section
29 of the POCSO Act.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent police submitted that though P.W.1, 2, 4
and 5 turned hostile, P.W.3 categorically deposed and the prosecution
proved its case beyond any doubt for the offences under Sections 9 (c) (f)
(m) r/w. 10 of the POCSO Act. Though P.W.8 conducted enquiry and
submitted report and on that basis FIR has been registered, the victim
girls also lodged complaints. Especially, the complaint lodged by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
P.W.3, which was marked as Ex.P.3, is the vital document to the case of
the prosecution to convict the appellant herein. Therefore, the conviction
is not suffered by any lacuna and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. The appellant while working as Headmaster of Mukkulam
Panchayat Union Primary School, Dharmapuri District, there were
complaints from the third to fourth standard girl students. All were aged
about 8 years to 10 years old. The complaint lodged by the victim girl
viz., P.W.3 was marked as Ex.P.3. It is relevant to extract from the
complaint as follows :-
@bgau; : ePc&h
tFg;g[ : 3Mk; tFg;g[
mg;gh : rdh cy;yh
mk;kh : rgpdh
re;jpunrfnud; m';f m';f bjhw;wh';f.
njhH; nkny if nghw;wh';f/ Kj;jk; ju';f/
njhy; nkhy if nghl brhy;wh';f/ czf;F
vd;d gpor;rpdpfpfh/ ghthil cs;s if
clw;w';f v nkhny Vwp epf;fpw';f fl;o
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
gpof;fpwh';f fhJy cdf;F v';f Kj;jk; juy
bfhf;Fuh';F/ fr;ryd; gj;J vg;go cs;s if
cl;Lu';f itapW cs;s fps;u';f/ ghthl
cs;s if cw;w';f vd;W nfl;Lfpwhh;fs;/
,g;gof;F epc&h/@
On the basis of the this complaint, P.W.7 who was being the Block
Elementary Educational Officer, conducted enquiry and submitted report.
As per the report, as instructed by the superior officers, she lodged
complaint which was marked as Ex.P.7. On the basis of the report and
the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2016.
8. Thereafter, the victims statements were recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The second victim girl statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.P.1. The third victim girl
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.P.2.
The fourth victim girl statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
was marked as Ex.P.4. The fifth victim girl statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.P.5. The fifth victim girl also
lodged complaint and the same was marked as Ex.P.6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
9. However, except the third victim girl child, other victims did
not support the case of the prosecution. It is relevant to extract the
evidence of P.W.3 as follows :-
@vdJ tPl;oy; vdJ mg;gh. mk;kh. ehd;.
vdJ j';if epfh jk;gp ghpj;ghc&h
Mfpnahh;fs; cs;nshk;/ vd; mg;gh yhhp
Xl;Lfpwhh;/ vd; mk;kh r';fk; itf;fpw
ntiyf;F nghfpwhh;/ ehd; Kf;Fsk; Cuhl;rp
xd;wpa Jtf;fgs;spapy; 4Mk; tFg;g[
gof;fpnwd;/ re;jpunrfh; v';fs; gs;spapd;
bcwl;kh!;luhf ,Uf;fpwhh;/ myPdh. m!;tPdh
Mfpnahh;fs; tPL v';fs; tPl;ow;F gf;fj;jpy;
cs;sJ/ cz;ik ngRtJ vd;why;
cz;ikahfg; ngRtJ/ bgha; ngRtJ vd;why;
bgha;ahf ngRtJ/ rhh; ey;yrhuh> bfl;lrhuh>
rhh; ,g;g ey;yt';fsh jpUe;jpl;lh';f/ ,g;g
m';f m';f bjhLtjpy;iy/ vd;id rhh;
bjhl;oUf;fpwhh;/ ,Lg;ghz;l bjhl;oUf;fpwhh;/
iftr;rp bjhl;oUf;fpwhh;/ a{dpghh;k; cs;s
iftpl;L bjhl;lhh;/ njhs; nky; if
nghLthh;/ Kj;jk; fd;dj;jpy; bfhLg;ghh;/
!;Typy; itj;J gz;zpUf;fpwhh;/ vg;gg;
ghh;j;jhYk; gz;zpUf;fhh;/ ehd; mk;khfpl;l
brhd;ndd;/ mg;ghfpl;l brhy;yiy/ vd;id
mU:h; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhhpj;jhh;fs;/ ,nj
khjphp jhd; brhd;ndd;;/@
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
Thus it is clear that the appellant had committed sexual assault on the
minor victim girls. It is also corroborated by her statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the complaint lodged by her was
marked as Ex.P.3. Other victim girl children statements recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., are also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3.
10. Though the other victim girls failed to support the case of
the prosecution, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole
testimony of the victim without any further corroboration provided the
evidence of the victim inspires confidence and appears to be natural and
truthful. Further the victim girl who has undergone sexual assault is not
accomplice and to insist for corroboration of the testimony amounts to
insult to the womenhood. The evidence of the victim of sex-offence is
entitled to great weight absence of corroboration notwithstanding.
11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently contended that P.W.8 had previous enmity with the appellant
and as such the false case has been registered as against the appellant, he
failed to substantiate the same by let in evidence. That apart, P.W.11 was
the Children Protection Officer, Dharmapuri District and on the basis of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
the complaint lodged by the victims, he conducted enquiry and submitted
report before the District Collector. His statement was also recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was marked as Ex.P.13. Similarly,
P.W.12 , who was working as Child line Co-ordinator, also conducted
enquiry and submitted report. Her statement was also recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was marked as Ex.P.14. These statements
are clearly corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, the
prosecution clearly proved its case and bring the charges for the offences
under Sections 9(c), 9(f), 9(m) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act, to home to convict
the appellant herein.
12. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court to interfere
and the appeal fails. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
05.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Dharmapuri
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 06:24:07 pm )
