[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Hussain Mohammed Yunus vs The Union Territory Of Puducherry on 23 February, 2026
CRL A No.613 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No.613 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.7559 of 2023
Hussain Mohammed Yunus
...Appellant/Accused
Vs
The Union Territory of Puducherry
Rep.By
The Station House Officer,
Muthialpet Police Station,
Puducherry.
Cr.No.31 of 2019.
...Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by Learned Special Judge,
Puducherry in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2019 dated 06.08.2020.
For Appellant: M/s.V.S. Senthilkumar
For Respondent: Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy
Public Prosecutor (pondicherry)
ORDER
The appeal challenges the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed
on the appellant vide Judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed in Special S.C.No.37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Puducherry, for the offences
punishable under Sections 367, 377, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the
POCSO Act”). The appellant/sole accused was convicted for the aforesaid
offences and sentenced as follows:
Offence under Section Sentence imposed
367 of the IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
in default to undergo RI for three months.
377 of the IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
in default to undergo RI for three months.
323 of the IPC To undergo SI for three months.
506(ii) of the IPC To undergo RI for six months.
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, To undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
2012. in default to undergo SI for three months.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. (a) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/sole accused and
the victim boy belong to the same village; that on 08.04.2019, between 08.00
p.m. and 09.00 p.m., the appellant allegedly kidnapped the minor boy aged
about 8 years from the lawful guardianship of his parents on his motorcycle;
that he took the child to a coconut grove in Auroville and committed penetrative
sexual assault by applying coconut oil to his private part and that of the victim
and subjected the victim to anal sexual intercourse; and that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
compelled the victim to apply his mouth to the private part of the appellant and
thus committed the aforesaid offences.
(b). Based on a complaint given by the father of the victim/P.W.1, the
Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.17 registered an FIR/Ex.P18 for the offences under
Sections 323, 367 & 506(ii) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The
investigation was thereafter taken up by the Inspector of Police/P.W.18, who
arranged for the medical examination of the victim and recording of his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and thereafter filed the final report for the
aforesaid offences.
(c) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with, committed to the Court of Sessions, i.e., Principal
Sessions Court, Puducherry, and made over to the learned Special Judge,
Puducherry, for trial, which was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2019. The
Trial Court framed five charges against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 367, 377, 323, and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 5(i), 5(l), and 5(m) read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and when questioned, the accused pleaded
'not guilty.'
(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1
to P.W.18 and marked 22 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P22, besides eight material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
objects as M.O.1 to M.O.8. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C.,
on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.
The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his
side.
(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated in the first paragraph of this
Judgement. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the
said conviction and sentence.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the
prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt; that there
was a delay in lodging the complaint; that the victim disclosed the occurrence to
his father only two days later, when he allegedly saw the appellant near his
house; that the victim has made material improvements at every stage during the
investigation and in his deposition before the Court; and that the medical
evidence does not corroborate the version of the victim, and therefore, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, Government of Puducherry, appearing
for the respondent, per contra, would submit that delay in lodging the complaint
in cases of sexual assault against children would not affect the prosecution case;
that the victim had consistently stated about the penetrative sexual assault in his
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in his deposition before the
Court; that a Test Identification Parade was conducted; that there is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of the victim; and that therefore, the impugned order
does not suffer from any infirmity, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. As stated earlier, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove its
case. P.W.1 is the father of the victim. P.W.2 is the victim. P.W.3 is the mother of
the victim, who corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.4 is a
member of the Child Welfare Committee, who speaks about the lodging of the
complaint to the police on 12.04.2019. P.W.5 is a neighbour of P.W.1 and a
witness to the observation and seizure mahazars. P.W.6 is a member of
Childline, who speaks about the statement given by the victim. P.W.7 is the
Village Administrative Officer, who signed the confession statement of the
appellant and the seizure mahazar/ Ex.P12. P.W.8 is an employee of the finance
company, who furnished details regarding the ownership of the motorcycle
allegedly used for the commission of the offence. P.W.9 is the constable who
assisted the Investigating Officer. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are photographers who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
recorded the video of the victim’s statement and were witnesses to the
mahazars. P.W.12 is the Doctor who examined the victim and issued the medical
examination report/ Ex.P14. P.W.13 is the Doctor who examined the appellant
and issued the potency certificate/ Ex.P15. P.W.14 examined the bite marks
found on the victim and spoke about the report issued by P.W.15, marked as
Ex.P16. P.W.15 confirmed the same. P.W.16 is the learned Magistrate who
recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and conducted
the Test Identification Parade/Ex.P17. P.W.17 is the Sub-Inspector of Police
who registered the FIR. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer.
6. From the above narration, it is clear that the prosecution case primarily
rests on the testimony of the victim and the medical evidence. The remaining
evidence is only to corroborate their evidence.
7. As regards the offence of penetrative sexual assault, the prosecution
case rests upon the testimony of the victim. In the complaint based on the
statement made by the victim, P.W.1 has stated that the child was subjected to
sexual assault. However, the exact nature of the assault was not elaborated in
the complaint. Before the Doctor/P.W.12, who examined the victim on
15.04.2019, the victim stated that he was subjected to anal sexual intercourse.
However, the victim did not make any allegation that the appellant compelled
him to apply his mouth to the private part of the appellant. For the first time in
his statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
victim boy had stated that he was subjected to anal intercourse as well as made
to perform oral sex on the appellant. Thereafter, in the deposition in the trial
Court, the victim reiterated his version in the statement made before the learned
Magistrate.
8. It is seen that a Test Identification Parade was conducted and the
victim, P.W.2, had identified the appellant. The victim’s evidence insofar as
sexual assault is concerned is cogent and convincing. The victim, P.W.2 and the
father of the victim, P.W.1, have stated about the sexual assault and the fact that
the appellant had committed the same. The cross-examination of these two
witnesses has not discredited the two witnesses in any manner in relation to
their deposition on sexual assault.
9. The question is what the nature of the sexual assault committed by the
appellant/accused. As stated earlier, in the earliest version, the details of the
alleged sexual assault have not been mentioned. It is no doubt true that FIR is
not an encyclopedia, and non-mentioning of the nature of sexual assault would
discredit the witnesses. However, in Ex.P14, the Doctor, P.W.12, who examined
the victim, P.W.2, had observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
“I am of the opinion that: There are no sign suggestive of anal
intercourse but there is evidence of physical assault. Evidence of bite mark on the
cheek. Time of injury : More than 5 days.”
10. As stated above, before the Doctor, P.W.12, the victim, P.W.2, had not
stated about the alleged act of the appellant penetrating his private part into the
mouth of the victim. The Doctor in his report in paragraph 15 had observed so.
The Doctor had also opined that there are no signs suggestive of anal sexual
intercourse. In fact, the Doctor had observed that the appellant kissed the victim
“mouth to mouth.” The Doctor had observed that there were bite marks on the
victim boy.
11. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution had not established its case regarding penetrative sexual assaults
said to have been committed by the appellant namely that he subjected the
victim to anal sexual intercourse and inserted his private part into the mouth of
the victim boy. However, the prosecution had established that the victim was
subjected to sexual assault which is the earliest version of the victim boy that is
reflected in the FIR and in the medical report of the Doctor.
12. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable to our Country.
Hence, the victim’s evidence, insofar as it is true, can be accepted. The evidence
establishes the sexual assault committed by the appellant. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that, considering the facts and circumstances, the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
guilty of the offence under Section 9 m r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The appellant
is also not guilty of the offence under Section 377 of the IPC.
13. The appellant is found guilty of the offences under Sections 367, 323
and 506 (ii) of the IPC and this Court confirms the sentence imposed by the trial
Court for the said offences. The appellant is found not guilty of the offence
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 of the IPC. Instead, he is
found guilty under Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The appellant is
sentenced to undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to
undergo RI for three months. The sentences imposed for the other offences are
confirmed. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
(i) The conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant
for the offences under Sections 367, 323 and 506(ii) of the IPC, by
the learned Special Judge, Puducherry vide Judgment dated
06.08.2020 in Spl.SC.No.37 of 2019, are confirmed.
(ii) The appellant is found guilty of the offence under Section
9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act, and the appellant is sentenced to
undergo 7 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo RI for three months.
(iii) The fine amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted
against the fine amount imposed now.
(iv) The appellant is acquitted of the remaining offences
charged as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
(v) The period of sentence already undergone by the
appellant shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands partly-allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23-02-2026
skr/dk
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. The Special Judge, Puducherry.
2. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Kalapet,
Puducherry.
3. The Station House Officer,
Muthialpet Police Station,
Puducherry.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN J.
skr/dk
and
23-02-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 04:53:09 pm )
