(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2022 in S.C.No.27 of 2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the judgment passed by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai in Spl. S.C.No.26/2022 dated 29.08.2022, wherein, the accused person has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
| S.No. | Convicted u/s. | Sentence | Fine |
| 1 | 6(1) of POCSO (Amendment) Act 2019 | To undergo life imprisonment which shall mean remainder of natural life of the accused | To pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year |
| 2 | 22 of POCSO (Amendment) Act 2019 | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months | To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks |
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused person is the father and the victim girl is the daughter. The victim girl was studying in 11th standard at Government Higher Secondary School. The accused person is said to have committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl repeatedly and as a result, the victim girl became pregnant and was admitted to Pudukottai Raniyar Government Hospital for treatment and on 15.09.2021, the child was still born.
3. Based on the statement recorded from the victim girl, a complaint was preferred (Ex.P1), which resulted in the registration of the FIR (Ex.P8) for offence under Section 5l, 5j(ii) and Section 6 (1) of the POCSO Act 2012.
4. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11). The victim had stated that she has two brothers and she was studying in the 11th standard. On 14.04.2021, after everyone had left the house, at about 11 a.m., the accused person committed penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter, the accused person is said to have threatened the victim girl not to reveal about the same to anyone. This act was committed repeatedly and as a result, victim girl became pregnant and she delivered a still born premature child.
5. Based on the FIR registered, PW7 took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P9 and rough sketch Ex.P10. She also took steps to get a DNA test done by the Forensic Sciences Lab, Chennai and accordingly, a requisition letter was sent. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also made arrangements for recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The DNA report (Ex.P4) was received and had confirmed the fact that the father of the child was the accused person. On completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the Special Court and the Special Court framed charges for offence under Sections 5l, 5n, 5j(ii) read with Section 6(1) and 22 of the POCSO Amendment Act, 2019. The accused person denied the charges as false.
6. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to P14.
7. The incriminating circumstances and the evidence were put to the accused person, when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.
8. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he rely upon any document.
9. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary, evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has discharged its onus by establishing the foundational facts and the accused person failed to rebut the legal presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this court.
10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
11. The crux of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a false case has been foisted against the appellant since he had a disturbed relationship with his wife (PW2).
12. PW1 is the victim girl. She, in her evidence, has explained the manner in which she was sexually exploited by the accused person, who is none other than the father of the victim girl. Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., from the victim girl further corroborates the evidence of PW1. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of PW1.
13. PW2 is the wife of the accused and the mother of the victim girl. She has also stated about the fact that her daughter became pregnant and only at that point of time, she came to know about this incident.
14. Insofar as the age of the victim girl is concerned, the same has been spoken to by PW3, who is the Headmaster of the School and through whom the school certificate was marked as Ex.P5 showing the date of birth of the victim girl as 27.09.2005.
15. PW6 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl and ascertained that the victim girl was 26 weeks pregnant. She has also spoken about the still born premature child delivered on 15.09.2021 at about 5.45 p.m. She also talks about the request made for sending DNA of the foetus and Ex.P7, which was the Accident Register prepared by the Doctor.
16. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, who talks about the various steps that were taken in the course of investigation.
17. Ex.P14 assumes a lot of significance in this case since it is the report of the Forensic Sciences Department, which confirms the fact that the accused is the biological father of the foetus.
18. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence of the victim girl has to be necessarily acted upon and the Court is not required to look for corroboration unless the evidence is disbelieved. The evidence of PW1 is further corroborated in this case by the evidence of the mother PW2 and also the medical evidence which shows that the accused person is the father of the foetus and that clinches the case of the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution has not only established the foundational facts, but they have in fact proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, they have discharged their burden under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The accused person has miserably failed to rebut the legal presumption. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
19. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai, in SC NO.27 of 2022 is hereby confirmed.