CRL A/625/2023 of PAKKIRISAMY Vs THE STATE REP BY on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.44 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam, convicting him for the offences under Section 10 r/w 9(m) of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was the neighbour of the victim [aged 8 years at the time of occurrence); that on 29.07.2018 at about 5.00 p.m., when the victim was playing in front of the appellant’s house after returning from her school, the appellant called her to his house, lifted her skirt and inappropriately touched her private part; and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) The victim had not informed her parents about the occurrence and on the next day, i.e., 30.07.2018, she developed fever and when she returned home from the school, she narrated the incident to her mother

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 and a complaint [Ex.P1] was lodged immediately by PW1, on the basis of which an FIR [Ex.P6] was registered in Cr.No.15 of 2018 by the respondent police. The investigation was conducted by PW9 and a final report was filed for the offence under Section 10 r/w 9(m) of the POCSO Act, before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam.

(iii) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.44 of 2018 and the trial Court framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offences under Section 10 r/w 9(m) of the POCSO Act, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, viz., PW1 to PW9 and marked nine documents, viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. 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 nor marked any document on his side.

CRL A No. 625 of 2023

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the evidence of the victim to be believable and held the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him, as stated above.

3. Mr.Muthamizhselvakumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution case rests on the evidence of the victim, who did not complain about the incident on the same day; that the nature of the assault is such that there cannot be any corroboration; that therefore, the appellant ought not to have been convicted on the sole testimony of an eight-year-old victim, who was amenable to tutoring; that there was enmity between the family of the appellant and that of the victim; and hence, prayed for acquittal.

4. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the appellant is accused of sexual assault by inappropriately touching the private part of the victim; that there cannot be any medical evidence to corroborate the version of the victim; that since the victim’s evidence inspires confidence and is of sterling quality, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the trial Court,

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 considering the statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution; and thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. As stated above the prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW1 is the father of the victim; PW2 is the victim; PW3 is the mahazar witness; PW4 is a hearsay witness; PW5 is the grandmother of the victim; PW6 is the mother of the victim; PW7 is the paternal uncle of the victim; PW8 is the doctor, who examined the victim; and PW9, is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed the final report.

6. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 29.07.2018. The victim had not informed her mother about the occurrence on the same day. She is said to have developed fever after going to school on the next day and when she returned, she informed her mother about the incident. The complaint was lodged on 30.07.2018 and the victim was subjected to medical examination.

7. Though no external injuries were found on the victim, the victim had informed the doctor that she was assaulted by a known person while

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 playing outside her house. A statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded from the victim. The victim confirmed the act of the appellant in touching her private part. Even in her deposition, she had narrated the incident cogently. She had not been discredited in any manner in the cross-examination, though a detailed cross-examination was conducted by the defence.

8. It was suggested to the father of the victim [PW1] that a false complaint was lodged because there was a prior enmity between the two families, as they are neighbours. Apart from that, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the complaint was lodged only due to the said prior enmity. The appellant had not substantiated the defence by producing any record or by examining any witness. It cannot be inferred that there was prior enmity merely because there was a suggestion put through the defence counsel to PW1.

9. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in a case of this nature, one cannot expect corroboration by medical evidence. The case has to stand or fall on the evidence of the

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 victim. If the evidence of the victim is of sterling quality, then a conviction can be sustained on the victim’s evidence. As stated above, the victim has been consistent in her version right from the time of complaint, during the examination before the doctor, in her statement before the Magistrate and in her deposition before the Court.

10. The delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court, cannot be faulted. However, considering the nature of the assault, the age of the appellant and other circumstances, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is Partly Allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.2021 made in Spl.S.C.No.44 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Sessions Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam, is modified as follows:

(i) The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 10 r/w 9(m) of the POCSO Act, by the trial Court, is confirmed.

CRL A No. 625 of 2023

(ii) However, the sentence imposed for the said offence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year;

(iii) It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C; and

(iv) The fine amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted against the fine amount imposed now.

(v) The appellant, who has been granted suspension of sentence by this Court, shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the trial Court shall take steps to secure the appellant to serve the remaining period of sentence. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Issue Order copy by 12.10.2026 ars

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

3. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRL A No. 625 of 2023 SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars CRL A No. 625 of 2023 09-10-2026