[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rajasekar vs The State on 9 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.716 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 31.10.2025
Pronounced on 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.A(MD)No.716 of 2022
Rajasekar : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State, through
The Inspector of Police,
Theriruveli Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.17/2017) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the Judgement of
conviction and sentences passed in Special S.C.No.5 of 2018 dated
20.12.2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram and set
aside the same as illegal and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr. B.N.Raja Mohamed
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.716 of 2022
JUDGMENT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the Special Court for trial of cases under the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, that is, the learned
Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) at
Ramanathapuram in Special S.C. No.5 of 2018 dated 20.12.2019. By the
above judgment, the learned Trial court had convicted the appellant and
sentenced him as detailed below:
2. Penal Provision:
Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Sentence of Imprisonment: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
10,000/-, in default to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The
sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Further, the learned Trial Court has recommended payment of
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the State
Government’s Victim Compensation Fund by depositing the same in a
fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years. The
mother of the victim child is directed to receive the interest on the same
till the child attains the age of majority, towards meeting the expenditure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
relating to the minor girl’s education and medical needs.
Case of the Prosecution in Brief:
4. The respondent/complainant registered a case against the
appellant for alleged offences under Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under
Section 324 IPC on the basis of information given by one Vembukani, wife
of Munusamy, who is the de facto complainant and was examined as PW1,
following which a First Information Report came to be registered in Crime
No.17 of 2017 on 04.04.2017.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2017, when the
de facto complainant had gone out for her daily wage job after sending
her two children to school after feeding them at 8.00 a.m., she was said
to have been called by one Vasuki, wife of Kasi, who was examined as
PW2, informing her that her daughter, that is, the victim girl who was
examined as PW10, had got injured on her head as she was said to have
fallen down, and instructed her to come to the Government Hospital,
Mudhukulathur. There, the de facto complainant was said to have found
the victim girl (PW10) with an injury on the backside of her head and in
the vagina. Owing to the injury on the backside of the head and vagina,
the de facto complainant was advised to take the victim girl to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Government Hospital at Ramanathapuram.
6. At that time, it was revealed to the de facto complainant by
Vasuki, wife of Kasi (PW2), and her husband Kasi Lingam, who was listed
as LW2, that they had peeped into the house of the de facto complainant
on hearing a sound from the backyard bathing space of the de facto
complainant’s house, where they identified the appellant inserting his
fingers into the sexual organ/vagina of the victim girl, while forcibly
shutting and compressing her mouth using his other hand, and that he
had taken to his heels by pushing the victim girl on the washing stone
block. On receipt of the said information, the de facto complainant rushed
with the victim girl to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, from
where she was further taken to the Medical Officer of Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai.
7. The case was investigated, and a final report was filed before
the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, as
Final Report in FR No.60 of 2017 on 20.10.2017, for alleged offences
punishable under Sections 5(i), 5(m), r/w 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
8. On the side of the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, took
cognizance of the offence as Special S.C. No.5 of 2018, where the charge
was framed against the appellant for alleged offences under Section 5(i)
(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act), and the case was tried.
9. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses as PW1
to PW12 and marked Exhibits P1 to P12. No material objects were
marked. On the side of the defence, neither witnesses nor documents nor
material objects were marked.
10. After examination of prosecution witnesses, when the
appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, on the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him, he denied the same as false.
11. The learned Trial court, after considering the evidence on
record and hearing either side, by judgment dated 20.12.2019, convicted
and sentenced the accused as detailed in paragraph number two supra.
12. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused
has filed the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Arguments of the appellant’s counsel:
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that, the learned Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the victim
girl, PW 10, which would expose the probability of being tutored that got
surfaced on perusal of her statement before the learned Judicial
Magistrate under section 164 (5) of the Court of Criminal Procedure,
1973, marked as Exhibit P8 and her deposition before the learned Trial
Court. It was categorically argued that the learned Trial Court failed to
comply with the provisions of Section 36 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in
letter and spirit by exposing the child to the alleged accused during trial
by asking the victim to identify him. Further, the learned counsel
submitted that the learned Trial Court had negated the factum of the
failure of the victim girl who was examined PW -10 to name the appellant,
which was confirmed by Mrs. Muthu Lakshmi, who was examined as PW -
11, who was the initial investigating officer.
14. The learned counsel categorically contended that the medical
evidence pertaining to serology and the forensic science lab does not
support the the prosecution versions. The learned counsel further insisted
that in the event of absence of relevant evidence as to the presence of the
victim girl at home during the working days of the school, it is highly
improbable for the existence of the alleged occurrence. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
counsel further pointed out that the statement of the de facto complainant
PW1, that the information was said to have been given before the
respondent police on 04.04.2017 at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai,
gets negated through her evidence in cross examination before the
learned Trial Court that the information was given before the respondent
police at Hospital, Muthukalathur.
15. Further, he pointed out that the contradiction in the
statement made in the first information report and the testimony of PW2
as to her acquaintance as to the alleged occurrence , before the Court
itself would falsify the prosecutions story. Further, the learned counsel
submitted that, considering the contradictions in the evidence adduced by
PW2 in proper perspective, projecting herself that the sole eyewitness
than de facto complainant, who is nothing but a hearsay witness, the
benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. The learned
counsel further insisted that the contradictions elicited on examination of
PW2, upon whose evidence the prosecution had built up its case and has
established the prosecution's story would obviously disprove the charges
levelled against the appellant.
16. Pointing out that the learned Trial Court failed to observe the
evidence of one Sathish examined as PW3, who deposed in his Chief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
examination that, the victim girl was pushed and pinched on the cheeks,
which will not establish any sexual assault. Further, it was pointed out
that, PW3 went on deposing that the victim girl has revealed the fact only
to him and his mother but not to the de facto complainant, PW1. Further,
the learned counsel pointed out that in the testimony of the medical
officer, Dr. Lakshmi Devi, who was examined as PW-8 while cross
examination, she did not mention the depth of the wound rather than
mentioning the size of the wound. Elaborating that the prosecution neither
recovered any clothes, which would have been worn by the victim girl at
the time of the occurrence, or had taken any steps to produce them
before the Court to be marked as material objects. The learned counsel
insisted that the same would prove to stand to the benefit of the
appellant.
17. The learned counsel further pointed out that, PW1 in his
cross-examination admitted that the rough sketch markers exhibit P9 is
silent upon the alleged place of occurrence and further admitted in her
cross-examination that she did not mention about the bathroom of the
house of the de facto complainant PW1 categorically contending that the
investigation itself is perfunctory in nature. The learned counsel insisted
for setting aside the learned Trial Court's judgement of conviction and
sentence and allow the criminal appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Arguments on behalf of the state:
18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the victim was only four years and five months old at the time of
occurrence and the same has been substantiated by marking the
certificate issued by the Head Master of Ravuthar Sahib Primary School,
as exhibit P2 and her statement was also recorded under section 164 (5)
of Cr.P.C., 1973, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, and the
same is marked as Exhibit P8.
19. The de facto complainant is the mother of the victim girl,
being a coolie worker on 03.04.2017 at 8.a.m after feeding her two
children, she had gone for her coolie work. Her elder son is pursuing
fourth standard at Ravuthar Sahib Primary School, and the victim girl LKG
in the same school. On the said date, at about 2:30 PM., the de facto
complainant had received a phone call from PW2 Vasuki wife of Kasi in
informing her that the victim had fallen down as a result of which she had
sustained injuries in her backside of her head and they are taking her to
Mudukulathur Government Hospital and directed her to immediately join
at Mudhukulathur Government Hospital. While the de facto complainant
had reached Mudukulathur Government Hospital, she found the victim
girl /her daughter, in an unconscious state and her backside of her head
was bleeding with blood injury and her vagina was also bleeding with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
blood injuries.
20. On examination of the victim girl, the doctor observing the
bleeding of Vagina had directed the de facto complainant to take the
victim girl for better treatment to Ramanathapuram Government
Hospital, from where she was further promptly sent in 108 ambulance to
Rajaji Medical College, Madurai. When the de facto complainant enquired
with Vasuki and her husband, Kasi Lingam, they had informed her that on
hearing the screaming voice of the victim girl, they had peeped through
their kitchen from where they found that one, the Raja Sekar, that is, the
Appellant herein, had indulged in sexual offence by inserting his fingers
into the vagina of the victim girl by force, pushing her aside above the
washing stone of the bathing space in the backyard of the de facto
complainant's house, and at the same time he had also closed and
compressed and had shut the mouth of the victim girl, preventing her
from screaming, and on the indulgence of the Vasuki, he had pushed the
child from the bathing stone and had ran away. And when Vasuki and her
husband had gone near the victim child, they found the child with blood
injuries in the back side of her head and vagina, in an unconscious state
and they have taken the child and had admitted the child in
Muthukalathur Government Hospital.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
21. Thereafter, at about 5 p.m., for higher treatment from
Mudugalathur Government Hospital, the child was admitted at
Ramanathapuram Government Hospital, from where she was further
referred to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital in 108 ambulance and
reached Rajaji Medical College at 9 PM, wherein the victim was given
higher treatment, X-ray and scan were also taken. The de facto
complainant had given a complaint marked as Exhibit P1, based on which,
the investigation was conducted. The victim was produced before the
medical officer, who made entries in the accident register, which is marked
as Exhibit P4, in which the nature of injuries has been recorded as
bleeding from the vaginal region and abrasion over the left side of occiput
region and was brought by a relative (Uncle) and since the same is a case
of sexual offence, the victim is referred to Government Hospital
Ramanathapuram for OG opinion where the child was medically examined
and a certificate of examination for sexual offence cases was also issued
and the same was marked as Exhibit P6.
22. The victim was later produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, for statement under 164(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, and the same was
also recorded and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. To
substantiate the charges the victim was examined as PW 10, and the
doctor who examined the child at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
was examined as PW8. and the doctor who examined the child at
Mudugalathur Primary Health Centre, was examined as PW7. The age of
the victim has also been duly substantiated by marking Ex-P2. The
prosecution has proved that the victim is a minor child at the time of
occurrence.
23. The evidence of the victim combined with the evidence of
the doctors proved that the appellant committed penetrative sexual
assault, causing bodily harm and injury to the sexual organ of the child,
who is less than the age of 12, of the age precisely four years and five
months. Through the testimony of the victim, the de facto complainant,
the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164(5 ) Cr.P.C., 1973,
and the testimony of the doctor's, the prosecution has proved its case,
that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, and hence
there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
24. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State and have consciously gone through the evidence and materials
placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
Points for determination:
25. In the light of the rival submissions and the evidence on
record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the victim was a “child” below twelve years of age at the time of the
occurrence?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has established that the appellant
committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child, attracting
Sections 5(i) and 5(m) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act?
(iii) Whether the alleged contradictions, omissions and
investigative lapses are of such a nature as to create reasonable doubt
regarding the prosecution case?
(iv) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned Trial Court warrant interference by this Court?
Analysis:
26. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the Appellant
had committed penetrative sexual assault causing, bodily harm, and
injury to the sexual organ of the child below 12 years. The prosecution
followed the due procedures, and after completing the investigation, filed
final report before the learned Special Court. In order to substantiate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, and out of these, the main
witnesses were the victim, who was examined as PW10, the de facto
complainant, PW1-the mother of the victim, PW2-the neighbour of the
victim, who was the eyewitness. The statement of the victim recorded by
the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., 1973, was
marked as Exhibit P-8. In order to prove the age of the victim, the age
certificate of the victim issued by the school, wherein the victim is
studying is marked as Exhibit P2.
27. Therefore, a combined reading of the evidence of PW1 – de
facto complainant, ocular witnesses - PW2, & PW3, PW10-victim, and the
evidence of the doctor's PW-7 and PW- 8, and Exhibits P4 - accident
register, Exhibit P6 - the certificate of examination for sexual offences
case, Exhibit P-5 would suffice to prove the guilt of the appellant. The final
report as to the potency of the appellant leads this Court to find that the
learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence and convicted the appellant. Though the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that there are no ingredients to
constitute offences under section 5(i) and (m) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, we are of the considered opinion that the said submission is not
sustainable under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
28. Though the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the
appellant has committed the offences under Section 5(i) &(m) r/w
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The victim in her statement recorded
under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C has stated as follows:
“tprhuiz Muk;gpj;j neuk;: 5/30 P.M.
nfs;tp: ghg;gh bgah; vd;d?
gjpy;: xxxx
nfs;tp: vd;d gof;fpwP';f?
gjpy;:; L.K.G.
nfs;tp: gakhf cs;sjh?
gjpy;:; ,y;iy
nfs;tp: rhg;gpl;O';fsh? vd;d rhg;gpl;O';f?
gjpy;:; Mk; nrhW. kPd;
nfs;tp: vd;d Mr;R?
rpj;jg;gh vd;id js;sptpl;lhh;/ jiyapy;
uj;jk; te;jJ/
nfs;tp: ntW v';F uj;jk; te;jJ?
(rhl;rp gpwg;gW
[ g;ig bjhl;L fhz;gpj;J m';F uj;jk;
te;jJ vd;W brhd;dhh;)
rhl;rpaplk; mjd;gpwF gpwg;g[Wg;ig fhz;gpj;J
vt;thW m';F uj;jk; te;jJ vd;W nfl;lnghJ “rpj;jg;gh
js;sptpl;L uj;jk; te;jJ;” vd;W brhd;dhh;/
nfs;tp: rpj;jg;gh bgah; vd;d?
bjhpahJ/”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
29. At this stage, it is pertinent to extract section 5(i) &(m) of
the POCSO Act, which reads thus:
“(i)whoever commits penetrative sexual assault
causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or
injury to the sexual organs of the child; or
(m)whoever commits penetrative sexual assault
on a child below 12 years; or”
30. Section 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 is extracted as
follows:
6.Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault. - (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative
sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than 20 years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the reminder of natural life of that person
and shall be liable to fine, or with death.
(2)The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be
just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the
medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
31. A combined reading of Sections 5(i), 5(m) and 6 of the
POCSO Act and the statement of the victim recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, under Section 164(5 ) Cr.P.C., 1973, in
conjunction with the medical reports, as well as the testimony of the
medical officers, would make it clear that since the age of the victim is
only four years and five months at the time of occurrence, the appellant
has committed the offence under section 5 (i) and (m) of the POCSO Act,
which is punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act. The age of the
victim was duly proved by the prosecution by the examination of the
headmaster of the school, wherein the child is studying as PW4 through
whom Exhibit P-2 certificate was marked. That apart, the appellant had
dashed the child's head in the stone, subjecting the child to
unconsciousness and had committed sexual assault on the child and the
same has been substantiated through the testimony of PW1, PW2, and
PW3. The testimony of the doctors examined as PW7 and PW8 would
corroborate the evidence of PW 1, 2, and 3, that the child was sexually
assaulted by the appellant.
32. To add more strength to the prosecution's case, the
aggrieved victim has also deposed her evidence, detailing the sexual
assault suffered by her. A cumulative reading of the provisions under
section 5(i)&(m) and section 6 of the POCSO Act ,2012, along with this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
testimony of the PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW10, along with
the 164(5) statement of the victim child, would clearly show that the
appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault, causing injury to the
sexual organ of the child who is less than the age of 12, more precisely at
the age of four years and five months.
33. Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012, defines the term
penetrative sexual assault, and the same is extracted as follows:
“3.Penetrative sexual assault.- A person is said to
commit “penetrative sexual assault” if -
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to
do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of
the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or
anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any
other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so
as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any
part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or
any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus,
urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
any other person.”
34. This clause defines the offence of penetrative sexual assault
and provides that if a person penetrates or inserts to any extent, any
object or a part of the body, not being the penis into the vagina of the
child, he is said to have committed the offence of penetrative sexual
assault. In the instant case, the appellant had penetrated the child’s
vagina, by inserting his fingers forcibly causing bleeding injuries to the
sexual organ of the child, by using force on her private part as well her
entire body.
35. This court, being the Appellate Court as the final Court of
fact finding, has to re-appreciate the entire evidence, independently and
give an independent finding. Though the defence had pressed upon the
fact that the victim child is not able to correctly mention the name of the
appellant, we are of the considered view that, a child of 4.5 years age is
normally not expected to know the name of a relative always and that to
in the given circumstances, the child had clearly stated that she was
sexually assaulted by her uncle/Chithappa and had consciously explained
the injury suffered by her in the back side of her head by the push
exerted on her by the offender and the injury suffered by her in her
sexual organ, both while deposing evidence as PW10 and in her statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
recorded under section 164(5) Cr.P.C., 1973. The complainant and also
the other witnesses more particularly, doctors, and the documents
marked, particularly, age certificate, medical certificates, accident register
and the testimony of the ocular witnesses PW2 and PW3, including the de
facto complainant and PW4 – the Head Master of school would suffice for
this Court to find that the appellant has committed the charged offences.
Therefore, from the entire material, this Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the judgement of the learned Trial Court.
36. Further, the appellant is a person who is known to the family
of the victim. The victim has clearly stated that she has suffered sexual
assault through her uncle (Chithappa), which had ended in grave injury
to her sexual organ, causing bleeding injuries. The child would carry the
scar of the sexual abuse throughout her lifetime and will not forget the
incident. The sexual assault on the child will have serious repercussion on
the physical and mental wellbeing of a child and the same will sustain
throughout her life. Child sexual abuse is not merely a statutory offence;
it is a profound trespass upon the body, mind and dignity of the most
vulnerable members of society. When the victim is below the age of
twelve, the offence assumes an aggravated character because the child,
being in the formative stage of physical growth and cognitive
development, neither possesses the capacity to resist nor the maturity to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
comprehend the gravity of the violation inflicted upon them. The scars
borne by such children are not superficial wounds capable of being erased
over time; they are deep, indelible imprints that accompany them into
adolescence, adulthood and often until the end of their lives.
37. This Court, while adjudicating allegations of sexual violence
against minor children, is conscious that the consequences of such crimes
transcend the pages of a case diary and the confines of a courtroom. The
violation impairs the child’s bodily integrity, disrupts their neuro-
psychological development, distorts their perception of personal safety
and trust, and often leads to enduring disorders such as post-traumatic
stress, chronic anxiety, depression, dissociation, fear of relationships,
sleep disturbances and behavioural regression.
38. It is within this legal, psychological and societal context that
this Court approaches the present case, mindful of the legislative intent
behind the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the
constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21, and the moral duty cast
upon every institution of governance to speak on behalf of children who
cannot speak for themselves.
39. In the instant case, the victim is a child below twelve years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
of age as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act,2012. The
appellant, taking advantage of his familiarity and proximity to the victim’s
family, gravely misused the trust reposed in him and exploited the
innocent child. In such circumstances, the appellant does not deserve any
leniency, and no mitigating factor is available to warrant interference with
the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.
40. In view of the above, this Court finds no justification to
interfere with the judgment of the learned Trial Court, either with respect
to the conviction or the sentence. The appeal is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed. On a comprehensive and independent re-
appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence and on
consideration of the submissions made on either side, this Court finds that
the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt for the offence under Section 5(i)(m) read with Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram, in
Special S.C. No.5 of 2018, and the sentence imposed thereunder, do not
suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
41. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2019
passed in Special S.C. No.5 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram, is
hereby confirmed. The appellant shall continue to undergo the sentence
as imposed by the learned Trial Court. The direction issued by the learned
Trial Court with regard to compensation to the victim from the Victim
Compensation Fund shall also stand confirmed. The learned Trial Court
shall ensure that the amount is deposited and operated in accordance with
the directions contained in the impugned judgment.
42. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed,
confirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court.
(P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,)
09.01.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
To:
1.The learned Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram
(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Theriruveli Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Section Officer
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.
Sml
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 01:51:16 pm )
