CRL A(MD)/246/2025 of A.Muthupandi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 12 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed against the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni, Theni District, dated 19.12.2024. The case

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2023 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant committed sexual assault on the survivor, a child aged just 10 years. On the next day, a First Information Report was lodged with the respondent Police, and Crime No.411 of 2023 was registered against the appellant under Sections 8 and 9(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Inspector of Police took up the investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, collected documentary evidence and filed a final report before the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni, where the case was numbered as Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2024. A charge was framed under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial was ordered.

3. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The defence examined 2 witnesses. No material object was marked on either side. Considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a default clause. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Point for Consideration Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Trial Court are sustainable?

Arguments:

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW1 had illicit intimacy with one of the listed witnesses (LW7), that the appellant questioned PW1 about it, and that this led to a quarrel between them. He argued that, because of this enmity, LW7 induced PW1 to give a false complaint against the appellant through PW2. To support this argument, he drew the attention of this Court to the suggestions put to PW1 and PW2 on the point and relied on the evidence of DW1 and DW2. In the alternative, he argued that, at the worst, the appellant had only pushed the child, which cannot be construed as sexual assault, and he prayed for the acquittal of the appellant.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW4. PW2 is the survivor; she clearly identified the appellant and narrated her ordeal in her evidence. The evidence of PW4 corroborates her version. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that both the survivor and the eyewitness withstood the rigour of cross examination. He therefore prayed that the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, be upheld.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides.

Discussion and Findings:

9. Ex.P6 is an extract from the school admission register, proved by the Headmaster of the school (PW10), in which the survivor studied. It records her date of birth as 29.06.2013. The date of occurrence was 26.10.2023, so on that date, the survivor had completed only 10 years of age. She is therefore a child within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act, 2012, and is entitled to all the protection under the Act.

10. The occurrence took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 26.10.2023. The survivor called the child helpline (1098) on the same night and complained about it. The First Information Report was registered the next day at 7.00 p.m. (Ex.P8), roughly 24.00 hours after the occurrence. Families are normally hesitant to approach the Police with complaints of sexual harassment or sexual assault, and here the delay is further explained by the fact that the father of the survivor was away from home and was working at Madurai. PW1 stated in her evidence that the child had called the child helpline on the very night of the occurrence, and not even a suggestion was put to PW1 to doubt that call. This Court therefore holds that there was no delay of any significance in lodging the First Information with the Police, and that the appellant suffered no prejudice on this account.

11. PW2 is the survivor. Her competency to give evidence was tested at the outset, and she gave rational answers to the questions put to her, which established her competency. In her evidence, she clearly identified the appellant as her assailant. He was already known to the child, so this is not a case of mistaken identity, and the appellant did not dispute the identification. She stated that she asked the appellant for his phone to call her mother. The appellant gave her the phone, and she tried to call her mother, but mobile phone of her mother was switched off, so she returned it to the appellant. At that juncture, the appellant grabbed the hand and breast of the child. The child tried to escape, but the appellant persisted in his assault despite her pleas. When PW4 rushed to the spot, the child released herself from the clutches of the appellant. She also spoke about the presence of PW4 and about the PW4 conveyed the matter to PW3.

12. PW2 further stated that she called 1098, the child helpline, on the same night. Her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex.P2) was duly recorded and was proved by the witness. PW2 withstood cross examination and she denied the suggestion that her mother had induced her to give false evidence against the appellant.

13. PW3 corroborates PW2. She stated that PW4 brought the child to her, told her that the child was crying, and asked her to enquire of the child. PW4 is an independent eyewitness to the occurrence. He identified the appellant and stated that the survivor obtained the phone from the appellant and tried to call someone. As no one answered, she returned the phone to the appellant. PW4 stated that the appellant then pulled the child by her hand and pressed her breast, and that the child cried. PW4 then took the child to the house of PW3 and asked her to enquire of the child. He too withstood the cross examination, and nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. Not even a suggestion was put to PW4 denying the occurrence or his presence in the scene.

14. PW5 saw the survivor immediately after the occurrence. She stated that the child was crying and complained to her that the appellant had misbehaved with her and pressed her breast. The child thus complained of the sexual assault immediately after it occurred, and that complaint is relevant under Section 8, Illustration (j), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It also shows that the account of the child was consistent from the beginning.

15. PW6 is the father of the survivor. At the time of the occurrence he was working at Madurai. He was informed of the occurrence on the very same night. It is therefore understandable that the complaint was lodged only on the following day, since the father was away from home and the mother lodged the complaint on the next day.

16. It is well settled that, in cases of sexual assault, the evidence of the survivor alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. If her evidence is believable, trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court, a conviction can safely rest on her sole testimony. This position has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Ganesan Vs. State (2020) 10 SCC 573).

17. In the case on hand, the survivor is not the only witness: an independent witness, PW4, has also clearly implicated the appellant and narrated the sequence of events. The evidence of neither PW2 nor PW4 could be shaken in cross examination. Their evidence is further corroborated by PW1, PW3 and PW5, to whom the distress of the child was disclosed immediately after the occurrence. Their accounts are consistent with each other on the material particulars, namely the borrowing of the phone, the grabbing of the hand and the pressing of the breast. This Court therefore has no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. The alternative plea that the appellant only pushed the child cannot be accepted. PW2 and PW4, whose evidence has been found reliable, both stated that the appellant pulled the child by her hand and pressed her breast. That act is sexual assault, and it was committed on a child below twelve years of age. The defence witnesses attempted to cast aspersions on PW1 by suggesting illicit intimacy, but they failed to sustain that defence in cross examination. Both are related to the appellant and have an interest in securing his acquittal, and neither is an eyewitness to the occurrence. Their evidence cannot outweigh the consistent and corroborated evidence of PW2 and PW4, and the Trial

Court rightly rejected it.

19. In these circumstances, this Court holds the accused guilty under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. As to sentence, the Trial Court imposed the minimum sentence of five years prescribed by the Act, together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. This Court cannot reduce the minimum sentence and therefore declines to interfere.

20. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2024 by the Principal Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Theni, are upheld. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Indu

To

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

2. The Inspector of Police Devadhanapatti Police station Devadhanapatti 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. Indu Crl.A(MD) No.246 of 2025 12-11-2026