CRL A/179/2022 of THE STATE REP BY Vs BALASENTHIL on 15 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment of aquittal passed by the learned Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, in Spl. Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 dated 28.02.2019.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondents/accused in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2018 had an illicit relationship; that the second respondent herein was married to the defacto complainant and a girl child was born on 28.10.2008; that on 19.06.2018, when the defacto complainant had gone out of station, the first respondent visited the house of the second respondent; that at about 7:00 PM, when the second respondent went to a shop, the first respondent had hugged the victim from behind and groped her breast. It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim did not inform about this incident to anyone; that on 20.06.2018, the defacto complainant, the second respondent and the victim went to Jolarpet and they returned to their home at Udumalpet on 23.06.2018; that the defacto complainant, along with the victim, left the house at about 11:00 AM and when they returned by 1:00 PM, they found the second respondent missing in the house and that he had lodged a “woman missing” complaint on 23.06.2018; that the victim later informed him about the occurrence that happened on 19.06.2018; that P.W.2 hence lodged a complaint on 01.07.2018 against the respondents herein, which was registered in Crime No.2 of 2018 under Sections 9 (m) and (i) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20121.

3. In the complaint, P.W.2, the father of the victim, has stated that the first respondent had caused injury to the breast of the victim and in 1 hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”.

her hand and that the respondents were in the habit of administering sleeping medicine to the victim when P.W.2 was not at home, so that they could carry on with their illicit relationship. The First Information Report, was marked as Exhibit P.11; that after investigation, the Investigating Officer P.W.11 filed the final report for the offence under Sections 9(m) r/w 10 and Sections 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.14. The Trial Court found that the complaint was motivated; that P.W.2 was aggrieved by the illicit relationship between the respondents; that there was no evidence to establish that the victim was administered sleeping medicine and that the victim has given contrary versions and that the complaint was filed belatedly as an afterthought.

5. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, would submit that the victim’s evidence is cogent and convincing; that even assuming that P.W.2’s complaint was motived, there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses and that therefore, the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, warranting interference.

6. As stated above, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim; P.W.2 is the father of the victim (defacto complainant); P.W.3 is the Doctor who had made entries in the Accident Register for the victim and marked Exhibit P.3; P.W.4 is the Doctor who had conducted medical examination of the victim and marked Exhibit P.4, the medical examination report; P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined the accused and issued potency certificate (Exhibit P.5); P.W.6 is the observation mahazar witness; P.W.7, who was examined to establish the witness to the confession statement of the accused, turned hostile; P.W.8 is working in the Child Line Office at Tiruppur District and would state about examining the victim and advising her to give a complaint; P.W.9, who was examined to prove the signature in the confession statement of the accused, turned hostile; P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report and handed over the investigation to P.W.11; P.W.11, after conducting investigation, has filed the final report.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused hugged the victim from behind and groped her breast. In the Chief Examination, the victim would submit that on the date of occurrence, the first respondent hugged her five to six times, pressed her hands and she came out running from the house. However, in her statement before the Magistrate, she had narrated the incident differently and stated that the first respondent attempted to hug and kiss her and she came out running from her house.

8. In fact, the Investigating Officer P.W.11, in the Cross Examination, has admitted that the victim had in her Section 164 Cr.P.C.

statement only stated that the second respondent attempted to hug and kiss the victim. The Doctor P.W.3, made entries in the Accident Register, which is marked as Exhibit P.3. The Doctor P.W.4 had opined that she did not find any external injuries on the victim. In fact, the Doctor has observed as follows: “No clinical evidence of recent sexual contact”.

9. It is seen from P.W.2’s evidence that his version is that the victim was injured in the breast and hands. But, in the Cross Examination, P.W.2 would admit that he did not make any such statement to the Police or in the complaint. A reading of the complaint also would suggest that P.W.2 was aggrieved by the fact that the respondents were in an illicit relationship. In fact, he had also alleged that they were in the habit of administering sleeping medicine to the victim to carry on with their illicit relationship, which has not been proved.

10. Therefore, considering all the above facts, the Trial Court found that it is highly unsafe to hold the respondents guilty on the sole testimony of the victim, whose evidence suffers from inherent improbabilities and contradictions. The Trial Court also found that there was a delay in filing of the complaint. The evidence suggest that P.W.2 was aggrieved due to the illicit relationship of the respondents. Therefore, exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out.

11. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the Trial Court is plausible and is based on appreciation of evidence. The findings are, in any case, not perverse, warranting an interference in the appeal against acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

12. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the scheduled fee to Ms. S.Sridevi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

To:

1. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Udumalpet, Cr.No.2/2018.

2. The Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahila Court], Tiruppur.

3. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai.

4. The Secretary High Court Legal Services Committee, Madras High Court, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL A No. 179 of 2022 15-10-2026