CRL A/799/2023 of M. RAGUPATHY Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 29 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted vide judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Special C.C.No.31 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore and sentenced to undergo twenty years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for offence under Sections 5(m) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376AB IPC. Challenging the same, present Criminal Appeal filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2019, PW2, mother of the victim lodged a complaint (Ex.P2) to PW8 stating that she had two daughters, the elder daughter being 11 years old and the younger daughter being 8 years old. The elder daughter was studying 5th Standard in Periyanayagiamman Matriculation Higher Secondary School. On 02.05.2019, the parents of the victim/PW2 & PW3 went to Sulur to attend a family function leaving their two daughters at home. The younger daughter went out to play and the elder daughter/victim was alone in the house. PW3 was running a motor coil rewinding business in the name of Dharani Engineering and there were about six to seven persons employed in the said business and the appellant was one of the employees. The employees normally used to leave their lunch boxes at the residence of the owner/PW3 and used to have their lunch either at the winding place or in the house. On 02.05.2019, when the elder daughter/victim was alone at home, the appellant came there at about 1.30 p.m. to collect his lunch box. He suddenly closed and latched the door, got undressed and the victim, placed his private parts on the private parts of the victim and pressed hard. When the victim cried in pain, he shut her mouth and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise the same fate would befall her younger sister. Hence, out of fear the victim not disclosed the incident immediately. Later, the victim's aunt, Nithya had some dispute in the family. At that time, the victim disclosed to her parents, the sexual assault committed by the appellant. Hence on 08.07.2019 complaint (Ex.P2) lodged, FIR (Ex.P8) registered in Crime No.179 of 2019 for offence under Section 376AB of IPC and Sections 5(m) and 6 of POCSO Act. PW9, Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P9), Rough Sketch (Ex.P10), examined witnesses including the victim and her family members and recorded statements. The victim sent for medical examination. PW6 examined the victim on 09.07.2019, issued final opinion/Ex.P5. The appellant arrested on 09.07.2019 and sent for medical examination. PW7 examined the appellant and gave his report/Ex.P7. Thereafter, PW10 took up further investigation and on completion, filed the charge sheet. During trial, PW1 to PW10 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 marked on the side of the prosecution and Court document Ex.C1 marked. On the side of defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in this case, though the occurrence took place on 02.05.2019, complaint lodged only on 08.07.2019, nearly after two months, and no proper reason given for the delay. It is projected that the aunt of the victim Nithya had a love affair and there was fight in victim’s house. At that time, the victim disclosed the sexual assault committed by the appellant to her parents (PW2 and PW3). In this case, the said Nithya not examined as witness. Further, PW1/victim admits that there were about six to seven persons employed in her father's rewinding workshop, namely, Ajithkumar, Karthick, Panneerselvam, the appellant/Raghupathy, her mother Malar and her aunt Nithya. In this case, Ajithkumar, Panneerselvam and the aunt Nithya not examined. PW4/Karthick, the maternal uncle of victim, who was also employed in the workshop, admits that Employees Service Register maintained in the workshop, but not produced, which is confirmed by PW9 and PW10, Investigating Officers. Further, the evidence of the victim is that, when she was sexually assaulted, at that time, another employee from the workshop came there and the appellant fled from the scene. However, no investigation carried out to identify the said employee. He further submitted that PW2, mother of the victim, claims that, the victim cried out in pain due to sexual assault and came out running. But it is strange that no one saw victim running out though the workshop is situated nearby, and no immediate complaint. The admitted position is that, two months after the incident, the victim attained puberty and, till then, there was no complaint. When the Doctor/PW6 examined the victim, she gave medical certificate (Ex.P4), in which it is recorded that there was no evidence of any foreign body or injuries anywhere on the body of the victim. It is further recorded that an “old healed hymenal tear noted over 3, 6 and 9’o clock position”. PW6 gave final opinion (Ex.P5), confirming that there was no evidence of any recent forcible sexual act and no physical injuries present on the body. The vaginal swab not detected any spermatozoa. Thus, the medical evidence conclusively establish that the victim not recently subjected to penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel further submitted that in this case, PW2, who lodged the complaint (Ex.P2) admits that she was an illerate and does not know to read and write Tamil. There were differences of writing in the complaint and signature. Though PW8 & PW9 admit the same, but gave an explanation that a written complaint was lodged. In this case, prior to the occurrence, there was dispute with regard to substandard winding work which was questioned by customers, the employer doubted the appellant spreading such news to the customers, hence, the appellant falsely implicated.

4. He further submitted that the birth certificate of the victim (Ex.P1) alone marked and no certificate from the Municipal Authority or any school certificate produced. Thus, it is in violation of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. PW9 and PW10, Investigating Officers, admit that in the Observation Mahazars (Exs.P3 and P9), there is no reference to any latch on the door of the victim's house. Thus, the foundational fact that the appellant closed and latched the door and committed penetrative sexual assault is highly doubtful. The Rough Sketch (Ex.P10) confirms that the workshop is situated on the front southern side, whereas the house is situated on the rear northern side. It is seen that all employees used to take food in the workshop and there was no necessity for the appellant to visit the victim's house. None of the co-workers and no neighbours examined in this case. PW4, maternal uncle, confirms that PW2 and PW3 were not in station and he was looking after the works in the workshop. PW4 not complained about appellant's absence from the workshop during the relevant point of time on 02.05.2019. Thus, the case rests solely on the evidence of PW1, whose evidence is with improvements and contradictions between her earliest statement, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11), and her deposition before the Trial Court. Thus, PW1’s evidence is with contradictions and unbelievable. These factors not properly considered by the Trial Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the contentions of the appellant and submitted that, in this case, the victim was a minor and her date of birth 21.11.2008, is proved by Ex.P1/Birth Certificate. At the time of occurrence, the victim aged about 10 years 5 months. The appellant employed in the workshop of the victim's father/PW3. PW1 confirmed that apart from the appellant, there were five other persons employed in the workshop. PW4, her maternal uncle, Nithya, her maternal aunt, and her mother/PW2 all working in the said workshop. On 02.05.2019, her father and mother, PW2 and PW3, went to Sulur to attend relative's function. On that day, younger sister of the victim went out to play. Finding the victim alone in the house and having access to the house for collecting his lunch box, the appellant went there, closed and latched the door and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The victim cried out in pain and, since she was threatened by the appellant, she not disclosed the incident immediately. There was dispute in the victim's house with regard to victim’s maternal aunt's love affair, at that time, on 08.07.2019, the victim disclosed to her parents about penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant. Thereafter, PW2 and PW3, the parents of the victim, went to the Police Station and lodged complaint (Ex.P2) with PW8. PW2 admits that she does not know to read or write, but she states that her husband/PW3 accompanied her and wrote the complaint (Ex.P2) and that, as the mother of the victim, PW2 signed the complaint. PW2 also confirms that the contents of the complaint read over and explained to her. Thus, the complaint lodged by the parents seeking justice for their daughter cannot be viewed with suspicion. PW10 on receipt of the complaint (Ex.P2), examined the victim, her parents/PW2 & PW3, maternal uncle/PW4 and other witnesses and recorded

their statements, visited the scene of occurrence at 08.15 p.m. and in the presence of PW5, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3), Rough Sketch (Ex.P10), produced victim before the Doctor/PW6, who examined her and issued Medical Reports (Exs.P4 & P5). From Ex.P4, it is recorded that “old healed hymenal tear noted over 3, 6 and 9 o'clock position”. Thus, the medical evidence confirms that the victim subjected to penetrative sexual assault.

6. She further submitted that the victim, in her initial statement, thereafter before the Magistrate, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11), and in her deposition before the Trial Court, was consistent and deposed as to how she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. There is no dispute with regard to identity of the appellant, employed in her father's workshop. The parents confirmed that they were not present in the house at the time of occurrence, as they had gone to Sulur to attend a function. PW4, maternal uncle of victim, working in the workshop, confirmed that the appellant was employed there. In this case, the victim threatened by the appellant, for that reason, the victim not informed the incident to her parents immediately. Two months thereafter, she informed her parents, thereafter, without delay, the parents of the victim lodged the complaint. The victim produced before the

Doctor/PW6, further her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. The appellant was arrested and produced before Doctor/PW7, and potency certificate obtained. The age of the victim and her date of birth as 15.11.2008 proved through Ex.P1, which was not seriously disputed. The medical records confirmed penetrative sexual assault. The Trial Court, on considering the evidence and materials placed on record, rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, it is seen that PW1 is the victim and her date of birth as 15.11.2008 is proved through Ex.P1/Birth Certificate. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 02.05.2019, she was aged 10 years, 5 months and 17 days. PW2 and PW3, parents of the victim, were away at Sulur to attend family function. The victim’s younger sister went out to play and victim was alone in the house. PW2, PW3 and PW4 deposed about employees keeping their lunch bags in the house and during lunch time, used to come and collect. Taking advantage of the victim being alone, the appellant went inside the house to collect his lunch bag, closed and latched the door and committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. The victim was also threatened by the appellant and, out of fear, she not disclosed the incident immediately. Subsequently, when there was a dispute in the family relating to a love affair of her maternal aunt Nithya, the victim disclosed the incident to her parents on 08.07.2019. Immediately, PW2 and PW3 went to the Police Station, lodged the complaint (Ex.P2) and FIR (Ex.P8) registered. PW9 took up investigation, visited scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3), Rough Sketch (Ex.P10) in presence of PW5, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. The victim produced before PW6/Doctor, who examined her and issued medical reports (Exs.P4 and P5). In Ex.P4, it is recorded that “old healed hymen tear noted over 3, 6, 9’o clock positions. In this case, the medical examination conducted nearly two months after the occurrence, hence, the absence of recent injuries cannot lead to the conclusion that no penetrative sexual assault took place. The medical evidence, particularly the old healed hymen tear lends corroboration to the version of the victim. The appellant also subjected to medical examination and his potency certificate (Ex.P7) collected from PW7.

8. As regards the delay in lodging the complaint (Ex.P2), the explanation given by the prosecution is that the victim was threatened by the appellant and, being a child, she was under fear and not immediately informed the incident to her parents. The subsequent disclosure made in the context of family dispute, and immediately thereafter the parents went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P2). Hence, the delay in lodging the complaint (Ex.P2) satisfactorily explained and cannot discredit the otherwise consistent evidence of the victim.

9. The defence took different stands, namely, that the victim was in love with the appellant and the appellant informed the victim's parents, hence, to keep away from the victim, the above case foisted and, further there was disputes relating to rewinding business, for which, the appellant was doubted to be the person who informed the customers, hence, a false case foisted against him. But there is no convincing material placed on record to substantiate either of the said defences taken by the appellant. The non-production of the Employees' Service Register and the non-examination of some co-workers or the maternal aunt, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not discredit the cogent and consistent evidence of PW1, particularly when her evidence regarding the occurrence is substantially corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and the surrounding circumstances.

10. The evidence of PW1, right from her initial disclosure, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11) and her deposition before the Trial Court, remains consistent with regard to material particulars of the occurrence and the identity of the appellant. The alleged contradictions and improvements pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The delay in disclosure also satisfactorily explained.

11. Thus, the ocular evidence of PW1, which is consistent and trustworthy, is duly corroborated by the evidence of her parents and the medical evidence. The defence failed to create any reasonable doubt with regard to occurrence or identity of the appellant. The Trial Court, on a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly found the appellant guilty. This Court finds no perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court warranting interference. The judgment of the Trial Court is well-reasoned and is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the principles laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases.

12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 11.04.2023 in Special C.C.No.31 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore is confirmed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vv2 To

1. The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector Of Police Kovilpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. vv2 CRL.A.No.799 of 2023 29-09-2026