CRL A/258/2023 of V.CHANDRAN Vs STATE REP.BY on 1 October 2026

COMMON JUDGEMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 29.06.2022 passed in S.C.No.119 of 2018 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, A-1 has filed Crl.A.No.258 of 2023 and A-2 has filed Crl.A.No.232 of 2023. The appellants/accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows : Accused Conviction Sentence A1 Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 To undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. A2 Sections 6 read with 17 of POCSO Act,

To undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

2.1. PW1 victim is the accused’s younger brother’s daughter. PW1 was residing with her grandmother and father in the house belonging to the accused. They were all living in a joint family since PW1’s mother had left PW1 and house and her whereabouts are not known. PW1 was residing in the same house along with her father and grandmother. After the death of her grandmother on 23.03.2013 and her father on 15.07.2014, she continued to reside in the accused’s house till 2017 and the accused used to take her to the school. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2014, her aunt/A2 closed the door leaving PW1 inside the room with the accused, thereby, the accused committed aggravated sexual assault and repeatedly continued the same till the year 2017. Besides he has also caused injuries on her body by using the needle and screw driver several times, therefore, she was subjected to torture. On 27.08.2017, the PW1 went to some temple festival and when she returned from the temple festival, accused questioned her where she has gone and with whom she has gone for which she has replied that she went to her friends house, however, the accused had bet her and caused torture, when neighbourers intervened, the accused also bet the neighbourers, therefore, PW1 has decided to end her life and went to the Railway Station to commit suicide & at that time, his uncle came and took her to his house, thereafter, PW1 has informed the same to her aunt and later, she gave a complaint under Ex.P1.

2.2. PW2 is the sister of the accused. According to her, PW1 informed about the sexual act of the accused on the PW1 on 30.08.2017 and she has questioned the accused and his wife, later PW1 went to Railway Station to commit suicide, at that time, Mani brought her and left her in her house. PW3/Medical Officer examined the accused and issued Ex.P5/Potency Certificate opining that there is nothing to suggest the accused is impotent. PW4/Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital deposed that on 11.09.2017, PW1 was examined by Dr.Bhuvaneshwari and issued Ex.P6/Accident Register and Ex.P7/Medical Examination Report.

2.3. PW6/Inspector of Police received the complaint from PW1 on 09.09.2017 and registered the FIR in Cr.No.5/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1), 5(m), 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act under Ex.P9 and took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P10 and rough sketch under Ex.P11 in the presence of PW12 and also recorded the statement of the accused and arrested A1 at 14.00 hours on the same day and sent him to Judicial custody and gave a requisition to the Court to examine the accused and also sent the victim to the Medical Officer and also took steps to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. After completion of the investigation laid the final report as against the A1.

2.4. Originally, A2/wife of A1 was not arrayed as an accused in the final report as well as the FIR and later, in exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, A2 was proceeded for trial. The trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, furnished copies of the prosecution documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the charges against the A1 under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 6 read with 17 and 21(1) of POCSO Act against A2. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

2.5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 marked Exs.P1 to P12. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances put against him, they denied the same. No defence witnesses were examined, nor any documents were marked on the side of the defence.

2. f. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, by judgment dated 29.06.2022, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred the present appeals.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that POCSO Act has been misused for a property dispute. PW1 was used as a tool to settle a property dispute between the accused and their family members. The evidence of PW1 is attached with serious artificiality, and her evidence that she was continuously abused sexually from 2014 to 2017 is improbable, since, she was continuously going to school till 2017. If such incident had truly occurred, she would have immediately informed her friends and school; however, she did not inform anyone. Whereas, her evidence indicates that as if she has been completely locked inside and unable to speak to anyone is highly improbable.

4. Furthermore, her evidence would indicate that physical injuries were inflicted on her using needle and a screw driver, but the medical evidence does not show any external injuries or marks on her body. PW1 is capable of understanding nature, she was studying 10th standard at the relevant point of time; therefore, her entire evidence is highly unbelievable. The Trial Court convicted the accused merely on the basis of her evidence. Further, there are many members in the joint family, however, none of them have been examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, PW1 was brought up by her uncle after the death of her father and grandmother. The accused also have a daughter of the same age residing in the same house, but she was not even examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Neighbors, school teachers and friends were also not examined to corroborate the evidence of PW1, whereas, PW1’s statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and her complaint clearly contradicts each other and it clearly shows that there is a dispute over the property. As the accused had declined to share property of her grandmother to his brother and sisters, the accused were falsely implicated. Hence, seeks for allowing the criminal appeal.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that the Trial Court convicted the accused solely based on the evidence of PW1, whereas, the medical evidence does not indicate any external injuries.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Of-course as far as evidence relating to the sexual offence is concerned, even if the PW1’s evidence transpires confidence of the Court, that alone is sufficient to base a conviction. The Court need not look for any corroboration, but what has to be seen is the probability of such occurrence could have happened. When the evidence of PW1 is carefully seen, according to PW1, she was studying 10th standard at the relevant point of time. After the death of her father and grandmother, she was residing in the accused house, while other paternal uncles were very much available and living in the same house along with their wife and children. Absolutely, no whisper made in her evidence regarding her paternal uncles and their respective families.

8. It is the evidence of PW1 that in the year 2014, one day, A2 locked the house with PW1 inside, and thereafter, A1 committed an aggravated offence, continuing to do so until 2017 and she was never allowed to go anywhere. That apart, according to PW1, her hands were tied, after which she was ravished, and A1 used to cause injuries all over her body using a needle and a screw driver. Her evidence also clearly indicates that even after such incident, she used to go to school with her uncle, who also brought her back. If such injuries had been caused to her on the body by a needle and a screwdriver, they would have been noticed at school. Admittedly, PW1 was attending the school until 2017. Her evidence also indicates that accused was strict, questioned PW1, and sometimes beat her because she used to go out with friends and return late. These facts also clearly shows as an uncle, he questioned her regarding her late returns. The question now is why PW1 would implicate the accused family when she was being taken care by her own uncle.

9. It is relevant to note that a careful reading of the evidence of PW1 and her complaint under Ex.P1 indicates that the daughter of the accused was also residing in the same house. The complaint alleges that the accused subjected her not only to vaginal intercourse but also to anal intercourse several times. However, when the medical evidence is seen, absolutely, there is no evidence whatsoever of such nature. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that according to her, she has informed about the said fact for the first time only before her uncle, after which she was brought to PW2’s house. On the other hand, PW2/sister of the accused/A1 deposed as if one Mani brought PW1 to the house. These facts creates serious doubt about the entire occurrence.

10. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that in Section 164 CrPC statement recorded by the Magistrate, it was the specific case of PW1 that there was dispute over the sharing of 85 sovereigns of jewelry and three properties of her grandmother

situated at Guduvanchery. PW1 also demanded transfer of the house in her name, which was refused by the accused. It is further to be noted that during cross examination, she has clearly admitted that the complaint itself was lodged with the help of her uncle Selvam, whereas, PW2 would say that PW1 was brought by Mani. Her further cross examination indicate that PW2 and her husband Selvam and one Arjun also attacked A2 previously with regard to the property dispute in respect of which criminal case is also pending and further in her cross examination, she has stated that from 2014-2017, she could not give complaint since she was kept inside the house under lock and key. This evidence is highly improbable for the simple reason that PW1 was in fact regularly going to school and meeting her relatives. These facts creates serious doubt about the entire version spoken by PW1. Her evidence before the Magistrate and complaint clearly shows that there is serious property dispute existent in the family. PW1 herself has demanded transfer of property in her name which was declined by A1 and later only, the complaint came to be filed.

11. Further, medical evidence do not show any semblance of any injuries alleged to have been caused by a screw driver and a needle repeatedly on her thighs and other parts of the body, and no injuries were found in the genital parts. Thus, we are of the view that it is very unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW1, and the possibility of a false case being foisted against the accused family on account of a property dispute cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, there was no reason as to why her cousin sister who was very much residing in the same house and other family members were not examined by the prosecution. This fact also creates serious doubt about the entire occurrence.

12. According to PW2, one Mani took PW1 to her house, however, the said Mani has also not been examined and other elders and family members not even examined though they are residing in the same joint family. All these facts creates serious doubt about the entire version of PW1 itself, thus, it is very unsafe to convict the accused. In a case under POCSO Act, the prosecution is required to prove foundational facts. Unless, such facts are proved, the presumption under Section 29 of the Act cannot be invoked against the accused. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012 would stand activated only if the prosecution proves the foundational facts. In the instant case, when the foundational facts itself is not established and doubtful, then the presumption cannot be applied mechanically as against the accused. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court in our view is not on proper appreciation of the entire materials on record.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the Trial Court in S.C.No.119 of 2018 dated 29.06.2022 are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges and are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is required in connection with any other lawful case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, shall be refunded to them. (N.S.K., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 01.10.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes dhk To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police, W-24, All Women Police Station Teynampet, Chennai – 600 017

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J. dhk Crl.A.Nos.258 & 232 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.5294 of 2025 01.10.2026