Man Who Posed As His Son To Lure 15-Year-Old And Sexually Assault Her: Madras HC Upholds Conviction, Cuts 25-Year Term To 20

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant’s convictions were sustainable on the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and the evidence of her age.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The Court confirmed the conviction entered by the Special Court but reduced the sentence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act from 25 to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the fine and default sentence were maintained.

01Facts

The prosecution case was that the appellant impersonated his son, “Vishal,” to induce the 15-year-old victim to travel from her home to meet him, then took her to a rented house and sexually assaulted her between 4 and 6 May 2021.

¶ 13–15, 38

The victim’s birth certificate and school records recorded her date of birth as 23 August 2006.

¶ 13–15, 38

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Sections 5(l) read with 6 and 11(iv) read with 12 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 366, 416 read with 419, and 506(ii) of the IPC.

¶ 9–10

It imposed, among other sentences, 25 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶ 9–10

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant’s convictions were sustainable on the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and the evidence of her age.

¶ 12, 38–50

ii.2. Whether the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act should be reduced.

¶ 51

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and Sections 11(iv) and 12 concerning sexual harassment; it treated the victim as a “child” on the basis of her birth certificate and school records.

¶ 38, 49–50

It also applied Sections 366 and 416 read with 419 of the IPC to the alleged inducement to travel and impersonation, respectively.

¶ 50

The Court reasoned that the absence of semen or spermatozoa does not, by itself, defeat proof of penetrative sexual assault, and that the victim’s testimony may be accepted where credible and supported by the record.

¶ 41–43

It considered the authorities cited by the defence on scrutiny of a child victim’s testimony, corroboration, and fair opportunity to cross-examine, distinguishing them on the facts.

¶ 42–48

Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164 Section 207 Section 209 Section 313 Section 374

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 366 Section 415 Section 416 Section 419 Section 506

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5 Section 6 Section 11 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the victim’s account that the appellant posed as Vishal, induced her to travel, and sexually assaulted her, and found her age established by documentary evidence.

¶ 38–39

It considered the victim’s account supported by the evidence of her mother and other witnesses, the landlord’s evidence that the appellant brought a girl to the rented house, and the medical evidence; it held that the negative forensic result did not undermine the prosecution case.

¶ 35, 40–43

The Court rejected the defence authorities as factually distinguishable, noting in particular that the victim and other prosecution witnesses had been cross-examined.

¶ 42–48

It found the offences under Sections 366 and 416 read with 419 IPC, and the relevant POCSO provisions, established.

¶ 48–50