CRL A/112/2022 of BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs STATE REP BY on 12 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the Judgment passed in CC.No.112 of 2017 holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

and sentencing him to 3 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was running a saloon; that the victim girl was aged about 6 years at the time of occurrence; that the victim's mother was running a shop next the shop of the appellant; that in the month of August 2015, the appellant took the victim to his shop, showed her inappropriate videos from his mobile phone and forced the victim girl to apply her mouth to his private part, which was informed to PW1 by the victim girl; that thereafter, PW1, the mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint Ext.P1; and a case was registered for the offences under Section 6 r/w 18 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

(ii) Upon investigation, the respondent filed a final report under Section 6 r/w 18 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 6 r/w 18 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty’.

(iii) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P17. The phone of the appellant was marked as MO1. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witness

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

nor marked any document.

(iv) The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act and convicted him for the offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him as stated above.

3. Heard Mr. S.Kingston Jerold, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Ms. Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case is based on the sole testimony of the victim child, who was aged about 5 years at the time of occurrence; that PW1, the mother had given an exaggerated complaint; that PW1, in fact had stated that semen was found on the face and head of the victim, which was found to be false; and that in the light of the tendency of PW1 to give exaggerated version, conviction even for the offence under Section 12, on the sole testimony of the victim, cannot be sustained and prayed for acquittal.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that though PW1, the mother of the victim has given an exaggerated version, the

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

victim's evidence is cogent and convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the victim girl in so far as the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act is concerned; and that though the video said to have been shown to the victim was not found in the mobile phone of the appellant, the victim’s version in her deposition and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is consistent.

6. As stated above, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. PW1 is the mother of the victim girl. PW2 is the victim. PW3 translated the deposition of the victim girl who deposed in Hindi. PW4 is a neighbour, who also owns a shop and corroborates the evidence of the victim. PW5 is the witness who had attested the observation mahazar Ext.P4. PW6 is a hearsay witness and would speak about the fact that on 20.08.2015, there was commotion and huge public gathering in the shop of PW1. PW7 is the teacher working in the school where the victim studied and certified that the victim was born on 21.10.2009. PW8 is the doctor who had issued the potency certificate for the appellant Ext.P6. PW9 is the doctor who had examined the victim girl, made entries in the accident register Ext.P7 and observed that there were no external injuries on the victim. She had also marked the medical examination report Ext.P9 and the forensic report Ext.P10. PW10 is the Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and conducted the initial part of the investigation. PW11 is the investigation officer who filed the final report under Section 365 and

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

Section 6 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act.

7. The mother of the victim girl, examined as PW1, had stated that the victim informed her that the appellant had made the victim girl apply her mouth on the penis of the appellant, as a result of which, the victim had semen stains on her head and therefore, she questioned the appellant. The victim's evidence, however, does not corroborate this version of PW1. There is no corroboration of this version in the medical evidence or in the report of the forensic science laboratory. Therefore, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW1 in so far as the offence under Section 6 r/w 18 of the POCSO Act.

8. The trial Court found the evidence of the victim in so far as the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act reliable. The victim had stated that the appellant had shown inappropriate videos in a mobile phone and harassed her. The victim's version before the learned Magistrate and in her deposition is consistent. However, the prosecution had failed to establish the nature of the video said to have been shown to the victim girl. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the victim was shown porn videos, admittedly, no such material was found in the mobile phone which was sent for forensic examination. But the fact is that the victim's evidence cannot be brushed aside because the nature of video that was shown to the victim was not proved by the prosecution.

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

9. Therefore, this Court finds that the finding of guilt by the trial Court for the offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act cannot be faulted. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant is said to have been in custody from 21.08.2015 to 23.11.2015 as per the Judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is modified to the sentence already undergone. However, the fine imposed on the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which, the victim shall be paid Rs.90,000/- as compensation. The amount of fine already deposited shall be set off. The appellant shall deposit the balance fine amount within a period of three weeks and in default, to suffer two months simple imprisonment.

10. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the above modification. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand discharged. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

To

1. The Inspector of Police, W-10, All Women Police Station, Flower Bazaar Range, Chennai – 01 (Crime No. 01 of 2015).

2. The Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai – 600 104.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )

CRL A No. 112 of 2022

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 112 of 2022 12-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 01:07:51 pm )