CRL A(MD)/1125/2024 of Saravanan Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 10 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Theni, in Spl.S.C.No.161 of 2023.

2. The Case

(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2023 at about 12.20 a.m., the appellant asked his 15-year-old daughter to apply pain balm as he was suffering from a headache. It is alleged that he then sexually assaulted her and that, a few hours later, he attempted to assault her again, but the other daughter intervened and saved her. The mother of the child lodged a First Information (Ex.P7), on which a case in Cr.No.327 of 2023 was registered by the respondent Police against the appellant under Sections 9(n), 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC.

(ii) The case was investigated, witnesses were examined, evidence was collected, and a final report was filed before the Special Court under the POCSO Act. The trial Court furnished copies to the appellant under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., heard both sides, and framed charges under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded.

(iii) The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. No material object was marked on either side. The defence examined two witnesses. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo five years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default sentence.

(iv) The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 506(i) of the IPC. It also directed payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the survivor, which was paid by the State. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Submissions

(i) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is supported only by the evidence of the survivor

(P.W.2), and that her evidence is unreliable because, owing to a property dispute, she had given false evidence against her own father.

(ii) In support, the learned counsel relied on the evidence of P.W.3, who stated that the survivor and her younger brother were staying with her in one room while the appellant was in another room. P.W.3 said nothing about the alleged occurrence.

(iii) The learned counsel further relied on the following:

(a) P.W.3 is stated to have written the complaint on 07.07.2023; (b) the survivor stated in cross-examination that, after a quarrel with her mother, the mother took all the children to her grandmother’s house at Periyakulam as early as 30.06.2023; and

(c) the survivor’s grandmother (P.W.4) also stated in cross- examination that, after a quarrel, the wife of the appellant took the children to her house.

(iv) The learned counsel also filed an affidavit of the survivor stating that a false complaint had been lodged against the appellant by exploiting her innocence. The survivor appeared before this Court, affirmed the contents of the affidavit, and stated that she had been made to say in her chief-examination before the Trial Court whatever she had said.

(v) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court had relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and convicted the appellant, and that, if the evidence of the survivor is reliable, trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court, a conviction can rest on her sole testimony.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of both sides.

5. Discussion and Findings

(i) The governing principles

(a) It is well settled that a conviction under the POCSO Act can be based on the sole testimony of the child victim, without corroboration, if that testimony is reliable, trustworthy and of sterling quality as held in the following cases:

* Vijay alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191;

* Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011 INSC 437) ; and

* Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573.

(b) In Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), ((2012) 8 SCC 21), the Supreme Court explained that a “sterling witness” is one of very high quality and calibre whose version is unassailable. The same principle has been applied by the Supreme Court to set aside a conviction under the POCSO Act where the version of the victim did not meet that standard (Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260).

(c) The corollary of this rule is equally important. Where the prosecution case rests entirely on the solitary evidence of the victim, that evidence must withstand close scrutiny, and if it is shown to be inconsistent or doubtful, the Court cannot sustain a conviction on it. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, does not alter this position. The presumption arises only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts, and it is rebuttable. The accused rebuts it by raising a probable defence, which can be done by pointing to infirmities in the prosecution evidence or by placing material on record.

The burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt remains throughout on the prosecution.

(ii) The evidence of the survivor (P.W.2)

(a) The case against the appellant rests solely on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.3, who was present in the house, did not speak of the occurrence. The question is therefore whether the evidence of P.W.2 meets the standard described above.

(b) During cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that on 30.06.2023, after a quarrel with her mother, her mother took all the children to her grandmother’s house at Periyakulam. This is confirmed by the grandmother (P.W.4), who stated in cross-examination that, after a quarrel, the wife of the appellant took her daughters to her house. Two witnesses, one of them the survivor herself, thus speak consistently of a quarrel between the wife of the appellant and the appellant and of the mother leaving with the children about a week before the alleged occurrence of 07.07.2023.

(c) This evidence materially affects the case of the prosecution. First, it shows that the relations between the spouses had broken down before the complaint was made. Second, the complaint was lodged on 07.07.2023, only a week after the quarrel. Third, the prosecution has not offered any explanation for this sequence of events, and nothing has been pointed out to show that this evidence was shaken. If this evidence is accepted, the circumstances in which the occurrence is said to have taken place become doubtful, and the defence theory that the complaint arose out of a domestic and property dispute becomes plausible.

(d) The defence theory is further strengthened by a subsequent event. The Sale Deed in respect of the disputed property was later executed. This lends support to the contention that the wife of the appellant, owing to the property dispute, used the children to make a false accusation against the appellant.

(iii) Subsequent events

(a) The survivor filed an affidavit before this Court, and appeared in person and affirmed it. This Court has not taken that affidavit into account, because it was not tested by cross-examination and is not part of the trial record. The conclusion of this Court is based entirely on the evidence recorded at the trial, namely the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 and the corroborating evidence of P.W.4.

(b) It is also on record that the survivor returned to the Social Defence Department the compensation amount that had been paid to her, and proof of the same has been filed before this Court. This is a documentary fact and does not depend on her oral statement. It is not by itself decisive of innocence of the appellant, and the Court does not treat it as such. However, taken together with the infirmities in the evidence of P.W.2, it reinforces the doubt created by the cross- examination of P.W.2 and P.W.4.

6. Conclusion The evidence of P.W.2 is the only evidence against the appellant. The admissions in her cross-examination, supported by P.W.4, the circumstances of the complaint, the subsequent Sale Deed and the return of the compensation raise a serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. A witness whose evidence is open to such doubt cannot be regarded as a sterling witness, and a conviction cannot safely be rested on her sole testimony. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of this doubt. This Court is therefore unable to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

7. Result

(i) In the result, the judgment dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Theni, in Spl.S.C. No.161 of 2023 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

(ii) Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The fine amount already paid is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rgm

To

1. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Copy To: Section Officer (VR Section) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

D.LINGESWARAN, J. rgm Crl.A(MD) No.1125 of 2024 10-11-2026