CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records connected with the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul in Spl. S.C.No.199 of 2023 dated 21.08.2023 and set aside the same and consequently acquit the appellants.)

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul, in Spl.S.C.No.199 of 2023, dated 21.08.2023.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows:-

Rank	Provision	Sentence	Fine
A1 & A2	Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act	Three years Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment
A1	Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012	Twenty years Rigorous Imprisonment	Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment
A1 & A2	Section 302 IPC	Imprisonment for Life	Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment

3. The period of detention already undergone by the appellants was ordered to be set off and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Trial Court also directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the parents of the deceased child within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned judgment.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:-

The complainant, who is the mother of the deceased minor girl aged about four years and residing at Palladam, handed over the child to A-1 Rajeshkumar and A-2 Keerthika on 19.10.2022, on their representation that they were a childless couple and that they would take care of the child for about 10 to 20 days. Thereafter, the accused took the child to their residence at Sengulathupatti, where, according to the prosecution, she was subjected to repeated sexual assault, physical torture and burn injuries. A-2 is alleged to have witnessed the sexual assaults and also inflicted injuries on the child by beating her and by using heated household implements. On 02.11.2022, when the child urinated inside the house, A-2 allegedly assaulted her and, with an intention to cause her death, lifted and dashed her against the floor, causing severe head injuries and rendering her unconscious. The child was initially taken to the Vadamadurai Government Primary Health Centre and thereafter shifted to the Dindigul Government Hospital and subsequently to the Intensive Care Unit of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Despite treatment, the child succumbed to her injuries on 04.11.2022 at about 4.00 a.m. Thus, according to the prosecution, A-1 and A-2 were responsible for the sexual assault, physical torture and resultant death of the minor child.

5. Based on the complainant given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.445 of 2022 was registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 326 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The original FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional Special Court under POCSO Act, Dindigul and copies were sent to the higher officials concerned. The respondent after completing investigation filed final report for the offences under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 75 JJ Act r/w.5(m),6 and 17 of POCSO Act. During investigation the victim girl was died without responding to treatment and thereby the offences were altered to 302 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 5(j) (iv),5(m) r/w 6 and 17 of POCSO Act. After receipt of the records, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, took cognizance of the case in Special SC No.199 of 2023 and issued summons to the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act and Section 6 of POCSO Act against A1 and under Section 326, 302 IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act and Section 17 r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A2. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

6. In order to establish the prosecution case, on the side of the prosecution 22 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW22 and 41 documents were marked as PW1 to PW41 and MO1 to MO4 were exhibited.

7. The evidence of the material witnesses, in brief, is as follows:-

                     7.1P.W.1, the mother of the deceased child stated that on 20.10.2022, she sent her daughter along with A-1 and A-2, who had been introduced to her through her friend Mallika. The accused represented that they would keep the child in their house for about ten days and thereafter safely return her. Initially, the accused remained in contact with P.W.1 through video calls. However, about four days prior to the death of the child, when P.W.1 contacted the accused, as there was no information regarding her daughter, she was informed that the child had gone to school. On 02.11.2022, A-2 informed P.W.1 that the child had fallen down, sustained a head injury and had been admitted to the Government Hospital, Madurai. On 03.11.2022, P.W.1 and her husband visited the child and found her unconscious and suffering from multiple injuries, including burn injuries and branding marks. A-2 allegedly informed P.W.1 that she had beaten and branded the child. Since she urinated in the house, the Doctor who treated the child also informed P.W.1 that the child had sustained injuries suggestive of sexual assault. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1, and subsequently gave a confidential statement before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul, which was marked as Ex.P2. The child succumbed to her injuries on 04.11.2022 at about 4.00 a.m.

                     7.2.P.W.2, the father of the deceased child, substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. He stated that on 19.10.2022, A-2 came to their house and A-1 came on the following day. Through his wife's friend Mallika, the accused requested that the child be permitted to stay with them for about ten days, to which he and his wife agreed. Thereafter, the accused took the child with them and occasionally showed her to the parents through video calls. About four days prior to the death of the child, when P.W.2's wife enquired about her, the accused stated that the child had gone to school and assured them that they would bring her back. On 02.11.2022, A-2 informed them that the child had fallen down, sustained a head injury and had been admitted to the Government Hospital, Madurai. On 03.11.2022, P.W.2 and his wife found several injuries on the child, including burn injuries, bruises, head injury, injuries to the private parts and anus and scratch marks over her body. The accused allegedly stated that the child had been branded with a heated object since she had urinated inside the house . The doctors informed P.W.2 that the child had been subjected to sexual abuse and that her condition was critical. The child died on 04.11.2022 at about 4.00 a.m.

                     7.3.P.W.3, Palaniammal, a neighbouring farm owner stated that the accused had brought the deceased child to their house and kept her there for about ten days. On the date of occurrence, at about 6.00 p.m., during a power outage, A-2 called her and she found the child lying outside the house. A-2 stated that the child had slipped and fallen after water was poured on her, since she had urinated inside the house. P.W.3 noticed heat-branding marks on the hands and legs of the child, which A-2 attributed to Diwali crackers. P.W.3 further stated that earlier on the same day, the child had been crying and that the accused had taken her to the hospital. At that time, P.W.3 noticed swelling and bleeding injuries on the upper and lower lips of the child. Subsequently, she came to know that the child had died.

                     7.4.P.W.4, the brother of P.W.3, stated that on 02.11.2022 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.3 informed him over phone that the child had slipped and fallen down and was unconscious. He immediately went to the place and found P.W.3 rubbing the hands and feet of the child. Thereafter, they took the child on a two-wheeler to the Vadamadurai Government Hospital. The nurse noticed injuries on various parts of the child's body and enquired about the same. A-2 stated that the injuries had been caused by bursting firecrackers. Since the child could not be treated there, the nurse directed them to take her to the Dindigul Government Hospital.

                     7.5.P.W.5, Mallika, who is a relative of A-2, stated that on 19.10.2022, A-2 came to her house and spoke to the deceased child through a video call. On the following day, both the accused sought permission to take the child with them. After obtaining the consent of the parents, the child was taken along with the accused. She further stated that for about four days prior to the occurrence, there were no video calls from the child. On 02.11.2022, A-2 informed the child's mother that the child had slipped and fallen in the rain, sustained a head injury and had been admitted to the hospital. P.W.5 further stated that when she visited the hospital, she noticed injuries on the child, including burn marks on the hands and legs, finger-mark impressions on the back, a bruised injury on the chest, bleeding and swelling in the private parts and anal region and torn lips. She also noticed that the back of the child's head was soft and mushy. On 04.11.2022, she was informed that the child had died at about 4.00 a.m.

                     7.6.P.W.6, Munusamy, stated that the accused were neighbouring farm owners and that they had been keeping the deceased child in their farm house. He witnessed the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and signed the same as a witness. The Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.P4.

                     7.7.P.W.7, Santhi, Village Administrative Officer, stated that both the accused appeared before her on 04.11.2022 and confessed that they had brought the child to their farm house, beaten her and branded her with a heated object and that A-1 had sexually abused her. They further stated that the child had sustained a head injury and became unconscious. P.W.7 produced the accused before the police and submitted a special report, which was marked as Ex.P5. Pursuant to the confession statements, the accused produced the blood-stained lungi, the child's underwear, a dosa spatula and a knife, which were seized under Exs.P8 and P9. The admissible portions of the confession statements were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 and the material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 4.

                     7.8.P.Ws.8 to 12, the doctors who treated and examined the child, spoke about the multiple injuries sustained by her. P.W.10, Dr.Padma, found burn injuries, contusions and serious lacerated injuries in the genital region of the child, with active bleeding, besides an abrasion near the anus. Vaginal swabs were collected for analysis.

                     7.9.P.W.11, Dr.Manimaran, stated that the CT scan revealed brain swelling and hemorrhage and that the child required emergency surgery. However, she suffered cardiac arrest even before anaesthesia could be administered. Despite intensive treatment, she died on 04.11.2022

                     7.10.P.W.12, Dr.Selvakumar, found that the child had sustained a severe head injury, multiple burn injuries and a genital laceration extending towards the anus. He opined that the brain injury was the primary injury and stated that the child died despite treatment.

                     7.11.P.W.13, the Forensic Officer, examined the internal organs of the deceased and found no ethyl alcohol or poisonous substances.

                     7.12.P.W.14, the Scientific Officer, conducted the biological and serological examinations. Human blood was detected on certain seized articles, though the blood group could not be conclusively determined. No semen or spermatozoa were detected in the examined articles and swabs.

                     7.13.P.W.15, Dr.Devi Piyansha, conducted the post-mortem examination and found numerous external and internal injuries, including extensive contusions, abrasions, burn injuries, skull fracture, brain hemorrhage and a lacerated injury in the genital region. In her final opinion, she stated that the child died due to head and brain injuries, multiple bodily injuries and penetration-induced sexual assault and their cumulative effects.

                     7.14.P.Ws.16 to 19, the police officers concerned, spoke about the registration of the case, investigation, inspection of the scene of occurrence, preparation of the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, conduct of inquest, recording of statements, recovery of material objects, forwarding of the material objects for forensic examination, alteration of the offences and filing of the final report.

                     7.15.P.W.18, the Scientific Officer, stated that the blood-stained lungi, underwear and blood samples of the deceased child were subjected to DNA analysis. However, the samples were degraded and, therefore, no DNA profile could be generated.

                     7.16.P.Ws.20 to 22 spoke about the accused having kept the four-year-old child in their house and the injuries sustained by her. P.W.21 stated that A-2 was seen beating the child and that he subsequently came to know about the alleged sexual assault committed by A-1. P.W.22 also stated that A-2 had beaten the child and that he subsequently came to know that A-1 had sexually assaulted and killed the child.

                     7.17.Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 establishes that the deceased child was entrusted by her parents to the accused and that thereafter she remained in their custody until she was found with serious injuries.

                     7.18.The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 further establishes that the child was found with multiple external injuries, including burn and branding injuries, and that the explanations offered by A-2 regarding those injuries were that they had been caused by firecrackers or by the child slipping after water was poured on her.

                     7.19.The evidence of P.Ws.8 to 15, the doctors and scientific experts, establishes that the child had sustained multiple injuries, including severe head injuries, brain haemorrhage, burn injuries and serious injuries to the genital and anal regions. The post-mortem evidence of P.W.15 further establishes that the death was due to the cumulative effect of the head and brain injuries, multiple bodily injuries and penetration-induced sexual assault.

                     7.20.The evidence of P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, coupled with the recovery of the material objects pursuant to the admissible portions of the confession statements of the accused, forms part of the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

                     7.21.The evidence of P.Ws.16 to 19 establishes the registration of the case, investigation, recovery, forensic examination, alteration of the offences and filing of the final report.

                     7.22.Though the DNA examination did not yield a conclusive DNA profile, the same, by itself, cannot be treated as an exculpatory circumstance when the prosecution otherwise establishes the occurrence through reliable oral, medical and circumstantial evidence.

8. After completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false. However, they did not offer any explanation as to the serious injuries sustained by the child while she was admittedly in their custody. They neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

9. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.

10. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that Ex.P1, the complaint, is not a genuine document and that the original complaint had been suppressed and a fabricated complaint had been brought on record. It was further submitted that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and that P.Ws.1 to 7 were only hearsay witnesses. The learned counsel also contended that the medical and scientific evidence did not connect the accused with the offences alleged against them. The learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witnesses and that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court solely on the basis of their evidence was unsustainable.

12. He further submitted that the DNA examination did not conclusively support the prosecution case and that there was delay in forwarding the FIR and other statements to the Court, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

13. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the accused were known to the mother of the deceased child and, being a childless couple, had represented that they would take care of the child. Believing their representation, the parents permitted the child to accompany them on 19.10.2022. He further submitted that on 02.11.2022, the accused informed P.W.1 that the child was unwell and, when the parents went to the hospital, they found the child unconscious and suffering from multiple injuries. Subsequently, the child succumbed to the injuries on 04.11.2022.

14. It is further submitted that the child was found with multiple injuries, including serious injuries to her private parts, and that the medical and post-mortem evidence clearly establishes that she had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical and scientific evidence, clearly establishes the involvement of A-1 and A-2.

15. It is further submitted that the child was in the exclusive custody of the accused from the date on which she was taken to their residence until she was found with serious injuries. Therefore, the circumstances relating to the injuries sustained by the child were especially within the knowledge of the accused. However, no explanation whatsoever was offered by them when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operates against the accused and that they had failed to rebut the same. It is further submitted that, though the DNA examination did not yield a profile on account of degradation of the samples, the medical evidence, post-mortem findings and other circumstances independently establish the prosecution case. In view of the above circumstances, he prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

16. In view of the rival submissions made on either side and the materials available on record, the following points arise for consideration:-

                     (i)Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased minor child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and physical cruelty while she was in the custody of the accused?

                     (ii)Whether the prosecution has established the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the injuries sustained by the deceased child and her subsequent death? (iii)Whether the accused have rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act?

17. This Court has given its anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions and has perused the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, as well as the impugned judgment.

18. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the deceased child was taken by the accused from her parents and that she remained in their custody at their residence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes the circumstances under which the child was entrusted to the accused. The evidence further establishes that the accused initially remained in contact with the parents through video calls and that subsequently there was no communication regarding the child for several days.

19. The evidence of P.W.3 assumes significance, since she had seen the child on the date of occurrence and noticed injuries on her body. The explanation allegedly given by A-2 that the injuries were caused by Diwali crackers has to be considered in the light of the medical evidence.

20. P.W.4 also corroborates the presence of injuries on the child when she was taken to the Vadamadurai Government Hospital.

21. P.W.5, who had also seen the child at the hospital, spoke about the burn injuries, finger-mark impressions, bruised injury and injuries to the private parts and anal region. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 provides contemporaneous evidence regarding the physical condition of the child immediately prior to her death.

22. The medical evidence assumes considerable significance in the present case. P.Ws.8 to 12 have consistently spoken about the serious injuries sustained by the child. In particular, P.W.10 noticed serious lacerated injuries in the genital region with active bleeding and an abrasion near the anus. P.W.11 found brain swelling and hemorrhage, while P.W.12 found a severe head injury, multiple burn injuries and a genital laceration extending towards the anus.

23. The post-mortem evidence of P.W.15 provides further corroboration. She found a skull fracture, brain hemorrhage, multiple bodily injuries, burn injuries and a lacerated injury in the genital region. Her final opinion was that the death was due to head and brain injuries, multiple bodily injuries and penetration-induced sexual assault and their cumulative effects. Therefore, the medical and post-mortem evidence clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the child were not accidental in nature and that she had been subjected to severe physical violence and penetrative sexual assault.

24. The next aspect which requires consideration is the involvement of the accused.

25. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 establishes that the child was taken by the accused to their residence and that she remained in their custody until she was found with serious injuries. The prosecution case is therefore founded, inter alia, upon the circumstance that the child was in the exclusive custody of the accused immediately before she sustained the fatal injuries.

26. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.

27. The Supreme Court, in Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 987, while considering a case involving brutal sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old child, reiterated the significance of the last-seen circumstance and the obligation of the accused to offer a plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which the deceased parted company with the accused. The Supreme Court further held that the established circumstances, when considered cumulatively, could constitute the foundational facts for invoking the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

28. In the present case, the circumstance of custody is not a mere circumstance of last seen. The child was entrusted to the accused and remained in their custody for several days. During such period, there was a cessation of communication with the parents. On the date of occurrence, the child was found in an unconscious condition with multiple severe injuries, including head injuries, burn injuries and genital injuries.

29. The explanations offered by A-2 regarding the injuries were found to be inconsistent with the medical evidence. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., merely denied the incriminating circumstances and did not explain how the child sustained such severe head injuries, burn injuries and genital injuries while she was in their custody.

30. This unexplained circumstance assumes considerable significance when considered along with the medical evidence, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and the recovery of the material objects. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not dispense with the initial burden of the prosecution. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts constituting the offence. Only thereafter does the statutory presumption under Section 29 operate.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in recent decisions. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr., 2026 INSC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of the POCSO Act, reiterated the statutory nature of the presumption and the necessity of establishing the relevant foundational facts before the presumption can operate. The said principle is particularly important in the present case. The prosecution has not sought to rely upon Section 29 merely on the basis of the allegation. The foundational facts have been established through the evidence of the parents regarding entrustment and custody, the evidence of the witnesses who saw the child with injuries, the contemporaneous medical evidence, the post-mortem findings and the surrounding circumstances.

32. The medical evidence is consistent and cogent. The injuries found on the genital and anal regions of the child, coupled with the post-mortem findings, establish penetrative sexual assault. The severe head injury, skull fracture and brain hemorrhage establish the cause of death. Thus, the foundational facts necessary for attracting the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act stand established. Once the foundational facts are established, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act comes into operation in respect of the offences covered by the provision. The accused were thereafter required to rebut the presumption by placing before the Court a probable and acceptable explanation. However, except for a bare denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no explanation has been offered regarding the circumstances in which the child sustained the injuries.

33. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence cannot, by itself, be accepted as a ground to reject the prosecution case.

34. It is well settled that a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are firmly established and form a complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused.

35. In the present case, the following circumstances stand established:-

                     (i)The child was entrusted by her parents to the accused;

                     (ii)The child remained in the custody of the accused for several days;

                     (iii)The accused initially maintained contact with the parents but subsequently stopped providing information regarding the child;

                     (iv)Immediately prior to her death, the child was found in the custody of the accused with multiple severe injuries;

                     (v)The explanations offered by A-2 regarding the injuries were inconsistent with the medical evidence;

                     (vi)The medical evidence establishes severe head injuries, brain hemorrhage, burn injuries and injuries to the genital and anal regions;

                     (vii)The post-mortem evidence establishes that the death was due to the cumulative effect of the head and brain injuries, multiple bodily injuries and penetration-induced sexual assault;

                     (viii)Material objects were recovered pursuant to the admissible portions of the confession statements; and

                     (ix)The accused failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the child while she was in their custody.

36. These circumstances cannot be viewed in isolation. They have to be considered cumulatively. When so considered, they form a consistent and unbroken chain pointing towards the involvement of the accused.

37. The contention that the DNA examination did not yield a conclusive profile also does not advance the case of the appellants. The absence of a DNA profile, owing to degradation of the samples, is not affirmative evidence of innocence. Likewise, the absence of semen or spermatozoa in the examined articles or swabs cannot, in the facts of the present case, displace the cogent medical and post-mortem evidence of penetrative sexual assault.

38. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that P.Ws.1 to 7 are interested or hearsay witnesses. We are unable to accept the said contention in its entirety. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased child and their evidence is relevant to establish the entrustment of the child to the accused and the subsequent conduct of the accused. P.Ws.3 to 5 had contemporaneously seen the child with injuries. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are not eyewitnesses to the actual assault.

39. The evidence of the witnesses has to be evaluated in the light of the medical evidence. In the present case, the medical evidence substantially corroborates the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 5 regarding the physical condition of the child.

40. The contention regarding the genuineness of Ex.P1 and the alleged suppression of the original complaint has also been considered. On an overall assessment of the evidence, we find that the said contention does not create such a serious infirmity as would render the entire prosecution case doubtful, particularly when the prosecution case is independently supported by the medical, post-mortem and circumstantial evidence.

41. As regards the alleged delay in forwarding the FIR and statements to the Court, mere delay, by itself, cannot be treated as fatal unless the delay is shown to have caused prejudice to the accused or to have resulted in embellishment or manipulation of the prosecution case. In the present case, the appellants have not demonstrated any such prejudice so as to discredit the entire prosecution case. The evidence relating to the individual overt acts of A-1 and A-2 also requires consideration separately. The mere fact that both the accused were in custody of the child cannot, by itself, establish every offence alleged against each accused.

42. However, in the present case, the evidence regarding the conduct of A-2, the injuries found on the child, the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and the evidence relating to A-1's sexual assault, when read along with the medical and postmortem evidence, establish their respective involvement as found by the Trial Court.

43. The learned Trial Court has considered the evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants. We find no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

44. At this juncture, it is also relevant to reiterate that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be invoked mechanically. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts. In the present case, the foundational facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt by independent oral, medical and circumstantial evidence. Thereafter, the appellants failed to rebut the presumption by offering any plausible explanation or by producing any defence evidence.

45. On a cumulative consideration of the entire evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased minor child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and severe physical violence while she was in the custody of the appellants and that the injuries sustained by her resulted in her death. The prosecution has therefore succeeded in establishing the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered in favour of the prosecution and against the appellants.

46. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul, in Spl.S.C.No.199 of 2023, dated 21.08.2023, is confirmed. The period of detention already undergone by the appellants shall be set off in accordance with law. The sentences shall run concurrently, as ordered by the learned Trial Court. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Trial Court to the parents of the deceased child shall stand confirmed. The respondent/Police shall take necessary steps to secure the appellants, if they are not already in custody, and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide