01Facts
The appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for sexually assaulting a ten-year-old child on 26 October 2023, and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000
¶ 2–3 · pp. 2–3On appeal, he alleged that the complaint was motivated by enmity and alternatively contended that he had only pushed the child
¶ 6 · p. 4The prosecution relied principally on the child’s testimony and that of an eyewitness
¶ 7 · p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were sustainable
¶ 5 · p. 3ii.2. Whether the evidence established that the appellant committed sexual assault on the child, rather than merely pushing her
¶ 6, 18 · p. 4, 903Law Applied
Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act defines a child as a person below eighteen years of age; Section 9(m), read with Section 10, addresses aggravated sexual assault and its punishment
¶ 2, 9 · p. 2, 5The Court applied the principle that a sexual-assault conviction may rest on the survivor’s sole testimony where it is credible and inspires confidence, relying on Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573
¶ 16 · p. 8It also treated an immediate complaint of the assault as relevant under Section 8, Illustration (j), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
¶ 14 · p. 7The Court stated that it could not reduce the five-year minimum sentence prescribed by the Act
¶ 19 · p. 10Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 8Section 9Section 10Section 2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164
04Reasoning
The school admission-register extract established that the child was ten years old on the date of the incident
¶ 9 · p. 5The Court found the approximately 24-hour interval before the FIR adequately explained: the child had contacted the helpline on the night of the incident, and her father was away working in Madurai
¶ 10, 15 · p. 5, 8The child identified the appellant and testified that he grabbed her hand and breast; an eyewitness independently corroborated that account, and the child’s immediate disclosure to other witnesses further supported it
¶ 11–14 · pp. 6–7The Court found that the material testimony withstood cross-examination and was not displaced by the defence evidence, which came from relatives of the appellant who had not witnessed the incident
¶ 17–18 · pp. 8–9It therefore rejected the claim that the appellant had merely pushed the child and concluded that the proved conduct constituted sexual assault
¶ 18 · p. 905Holding
The High Court held that the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and upheld his conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act
¶ 17–19 · pp. 8–10It declined to interfere with the five-year minimum sentence and dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence
¶ 19–20 · p. 10Original Court PDF
A.MuthupandivsThe State of Tamil Nadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
