Madras High Court
Sivakumar vs State Represented By on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.84 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.84 of 2023
Sivakumar ... Appellant
Vs
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Madipakkam,
Crime No.8 of 2020 ...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment dated 26.12.2022 made in
Spl.SC.No.71 of 2020, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed
in Spl.SC.No.71 of 2020, dated 26.12.2022 by the Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chengalpet, thereby
convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 11(i) read
with Section 12 of POCSO Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.05.2020, when the
victim, along with her brother, went to open terrace to play, the accused had
shown his penis to the victim and explained about how it operates. After seeing
the same, the victim girl returned to her house and informed her mother. Hence,
the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 11(i) read with
Section 12 of POCSO Act. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the accused, no one was
examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable
under Section 11(i) read with Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.5000/-,
in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same,
the accused preferred this appeal.
4. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Heard the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
5. A perusal of records revealed that the victim was aged about 10
years at the time of occurrence. She was examined as PW.2. A perusal of the
deposition of PW.2 clearly proved that the appellant had committed the offence
under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act. He had shown his penis to the victim
girl and explained about how it operates. After seeing the same, the victim girl
returned her house and immediately informed to her mother. She was also
frightened by the incident and remained unwell for the next three days.
6. The victim's mother was examined as PW.3. A perusal of the
deposition of PW.3 also clearly corroborates the evidence of PW.2. The victim's
father was examined as PW.1. He also categorically deposed and also
corroborated the evidence of PWs.2 and 3.
7. The victim's statement was recorded under Section 164(5) of
Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said statement also revealed that the accused had
shown his penis to the victim and explained about how it operates. He also
explained about the difference between the private part of the female and male.
8. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution had proved its case beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
any doubt and the Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant for the
offences punishable under Section 11(i) read with Section 12 of POCSO Act.
Immediately after the occurrence, he was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody and he was imprisoned for nearly 30 days. However, considering the
age of the appellant, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed on
the appellant.
9. In view of the above, while confirming the conviction imposed as
against the appellant for the offence under Section 11(i) read with Section 12 of
POCSO Act, the sentence imposed on him alone is reduced to the period of
incarceration which was already undergone by the appellant.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.
05.06.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,
Chengalpet.
2. The Inspector of Police,
AWPS Madipakkam.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 01:26:39 pm )
