CRL A/22/2022 of NAVEEN Vs STATE REP BY on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2018, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.02.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant along with two other accused/A2 & A3 waylaid the victim and took her in a bike; that A2 and A3, got down from the vehicle; that A1 took the victim to a nearby garden and committed sexual assault on the victim; that while returning home, she met her brother’s friend and informed him about the incident, who in turn, called her brother and informed him; that thereafter, she gave a complaint Ex.P1, to the respondent police and hence, a case was registered in Crime No.4/2017 for the offence under Sections 366A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.

3. Initially, investigation was conducted by P.W.11 and the same was continued by P.W.12. Thereafter, P.W.13, Investigating officer, after subjecting the victim to medical examination, examined the witnesses and filed a final report for the offence under Sections 366 Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act against the appellant/A1 and convicted the other two accused/ A2 & A3 under Section 366(A) IPC and under Section 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act,.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P1 to P21. The appellant examined two witnesses viz., D.W.1 & DW2 to prove his defence. The trial court found that the prosecution had established the foundational facts and the appellant did not rebut the statutory presumption under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. Hence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim’s evidence does not inspire confidence; that the victim had given contrary versions in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and in her deposition; that the victim in her cross examination had stated that she was not aware of the case filed by the police and she had lodged a complaint only because she was assaulted by the appellant; that the medical evidence would belie the prosecution case, as the doctor did not find any injuries on the private part of the victim to infer sexual assault.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim had supported the prosecution case in the chief examination and in the initial cross- examination; that she did not support the prosecution case in the subsequent cross examination done after she was recalled three months later; that the contradictions pointed out by the defence are minor and do not discredit the witness in any manner; that the doctor had opined that the hymen of the victim was not intact and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court does not warrant interference.

7. As stated above, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim; P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the victim immediately after the complaint; P.W.3 is the mother of the victim; P.W.4 is the father of the victim; P.W.5 and P.W.6 are hostile witnesses; P.W.7 is the doctor who examined the victim.; P.W.8 is the doctor who had examined the accused and issued potency certificate; P.W.9 is the Headmaster of the school, where the victim studied, and, who had issued School certificate to prove the date of birth of the victim as 18.03.2002. P.W 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R. P.W.11 to 13 are the Investigating Officers.

8. From the above narration, it is clear that the prosecution rests on the evidence of the victim P.W.1. In the complaint, she would state that A2 and A3 stood as guards when the appellant committed rape on her; that after the incident she informed her mother and subsequently, she lodged a complaint. However, in her evidence, she would state that the other two accused had got down from the vehicle on the way to the place of occurrence. Therefore, she would deny the presence of A2 and A3 at the time of occurrence. She would also state that while she was on her way back home, she met her brother’s friend and informed him about the incident. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said person has not been examined. In fact, in the statement given by her before the Magistrate, the victim had named her brother’s friend. Even more strangely, the brother of the victim also was not examined by the prosecution. That apart, there are several contradictions between the evidence of the victim and her earlier statement. Most importantly, when P.W.1 was recalled for cross examination on 24.02.2020, she stated as follows: vdf;F ,d;Dk; jpUkzk; Mftpy;iy/ vdf;F ,g;nghJ taJ 18/ v';fs; tPl;oy; ehd;. vd; mg;gh. vd; mk;kh. vd; jk;gp Mfpnahh;fs; ,Uf;fpd;nwhk;/ vdf;F FHe;ij vJt[k; ,y;iy/ etPd; rz;ilapy; vd;id moj;jjhy; ehd; nf!; bfhLj;njd;/ v';fs; tPl;oy; md;iwf;F rz;il ele;jJ/ md;iwf;F ehd; tPl;oy ; ,Ue;njd;/ v';fs ; tPl;oy ; rz;il ele;j md;W vjphpfs; Chpy; ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ nghyPrhh; vd;d nf!; nghl;lhh;fs; vd;gJ vdf;F bjhpahJ/

9. After the above deposition, the prosecution had re-examined P.W.1 though they chose not to treat her hostile. The prosecution had suggested that the witness had told a lie in order to save the accused. The witness denied the said suggestion and confirmed that her original complaint was false. In fact, the evidence of the other witnesses also suggest that there was prior enmity between the family of the appellant and the victim and there was wordy altercation on the date of occurrence. In the light of the above evidence and the deposition of

P.W.1 in her cross examination, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon her sole testimony to hold the appellant guilty of such a serious offence.

10. In order to corroborate P.W1’s evidence, the prosecution examined the doctors, P.W.2 and P.W.7. On 03.02.2017 at 12.30 p.m., P.W.2 had made entries in the Accident Register- Ex.P4. The doctor had noted that the victim was conscious, oriented and there were no external injuries on the victim. P.W.7 doctor who conducted medical examination of the victim, immediately after the complaint was lodged, had stated that the victim was conscious, oriented and in a sound state of mind and had observed that there were no injuries in her genital part. In fact, the vaginal smear was taken and no semen was detected. Further, the version of the victim that there were two accused/A2 andA3 near the place of occurrence was disbelieved by the trial Court.

11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be highly unsafe to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under sections 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

12. In the result,

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, in the judgment dated 04.03.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2018 are set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

(ii) The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/A1 shall stand cancelled. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSI To

1. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District

2. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. vsi CRL A No. 22 of 2022 09-10-2026