Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 20.01.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 10.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

Joseph Raja ... Appellant/Accused

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Rajapalayam.

Crime No.9 of 2022.... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C

to call for the records pertaining to the Special Sessions Case No.84

of 2022 on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases

under POCSO Act, Srivilliputhur.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Samidurai

For Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Special

Court for Exclusive Trial of case under POCSO Act, Virudhunagar

at Srivilliputhur, in S.C.No.84 of 2022 dated 20.04.2023, thereby

convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act,

2012 (herein after referred to as “the POCSO Act”).

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.05.2022 at

around 09:00 p.m., the victim girl and her mother had gone to the

Church that they usually go to. The appellant is a pastor and he runs

the Church. The victim’s mother left her at the church under the

appellant’s care and had gone out to meet someone. When she

returned, the appellant had panicked and ran away after seeing her

2/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

and the victim was found in a pathetic condition with her shirt

unbuttoned and pants rolled up. The next day when the victim’s

mother inquired about the situation, the victim informed her that the

appellant had sucked her breasts and had subjected her to aggravated

penetrative sexual assault. It was submitted by the prosecution that

the victim girl was 70% disabled, has moderate intellectual disability

and is speech impaired. Therefore, the appellant had taken advantage

of the victim girl’s disability and had subjected her to aggravated

penetrative sexual assault.

3.The victim’s mother had later confronted about the

incident to the appellant and he and his family had apologized and

begged to not disclose it to anybody and later that night, the victim

and her mother had informed about the incident to her father. Later,

on 09.05.2022, they had informed the same to one Esther, who had

further inquired the victim girl about the alleged incident. With a lot

of hesitation, they had also gathered a group of people and had gone

3/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

to the appellant to confront him, but in front of them he denied

committing the alleged offence.

4.Aggrieved by the same, the victim’s mother went to the

police station and lodged a complaint on 11.05.2022. A final report

was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court on

15.07.2022.

5.To bring the charges to home, the prosecution had

examined 9 witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.9 and produced 15

documents which were marked as Exs. P1 to P15. The appellant had

examined 2 witnesses i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents were

marked. No material object was marked by either side.

6.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the

Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Section

5(f) and 5(k) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with

4/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life i.e.,

imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposed a

fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo 2 years

simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has

preferred this present appeal.

ARGUMENTS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING

FOR THE APPELLANT:

7.The learned counsel appearing for appellant advanced his

arguments by raising various grounds:

7.1.It was contented that though the church was a common

place and despite the presence of other people at that time, the

prosecution failed to examine any independent eye witness to prove

the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. D.W.2 was the

person that the victim’s mother had gone to meet. It was stated that

5/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

D.W.2 turned hostile, however his evidence, though crucial, was

disregarded by the Trial Court.

7.2.Further, it was stated that, the evidence of P.W.1, who is

the mother of the victim girl and is also the defacto complainant, was

afterthought and the chief examination was exaggerated from that of

her complaint. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Trial Court

failed to take into consideration the fact that the medical evidence

did not support the case of the prosecution. The victim girl was

examined by the doctor who deposed as P.W.3 and after examination

she issued a certificate which is marked as Ex.P4. She deposed that

there is no injury on the breasts of the victim and there is no

evidence of intercourse on the genitals of the victim girl. The victim

girl’s physical disability was also not proved by the prosecution as

Ex.P8, which was the medical report of the victim girl’s mental

disability does not reveal about her physical disability percentage.

This contradiction is fatal to the case of the prosecution and

6/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

therefore the appellant is not guilty of the offences alleged by the

prosecution.

7.3.It was further submitted that, the Trial Court failed to

take into consideration the delay in lodgment of the complaint. Even

according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 had come to the

knowledge of the alleged occurrence on 04.05.2022 but had lodged

the complaint only on 11.05.2022 with about 8 days of delay, but the

prosecution had failed to provide a valid reason for the delay.

7.4.He also pointed out that the prosecution failed to

examine the family members of the appellant as it was claimed by

P.W.1 that the appellant’s mother-in-law was present when she left

the victim girl in their custody. Further, the appellant’s wife, father

and other close relatives were claimed to be present when she

allegedly confronted him about the crime, but none of them were

examined by the prosecution to prove its case.

7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

7.5.Further it was stated that, the Church which was the

alleged place of occurrence, was not owned or run by the appellant

and the prosecution also failed to prove that it was run by the

appellant for convicting him under Section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.

He also contented there was previous enmity between P.W.1 and the

appellant and as such to wreak vengeance, this false case was foisted

against him. Therefore, it is his grievance that the Trial Court

without considering the above details, had mechanically convicted

the appellant.

ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR APPEARING FOR THE STATE:

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that the victim girl who was examined as P.W.2, had

categorically described the alleged occurrence and the same was

8/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

corroborated by her mother who was examined as P.W.1. The victim

girl had properly and categorically described the incident by way of

both actions and words. Further Ex. P4, which was the medical

examination report, clearly reveals that the victim girl’s hymen is not

intact. This proves that the appellant had subjected the victim girl to

aggravated penetrative assault. The medical evidence might not

reveal the injuries caused by the appellant during the alleged

occurrence since, the victim girl was subjected to medical

examination after 8 days of the occurrence. Since, the parents of the

victim girl were scared of the social implications and consequences,

they were not aware as to what had to be done after the occurrence

and they sought for the help of several other members of the village

due to their helplessness and finally gave a complaint after 8 days.

He submits that delay is immaterial in POCSO cases and the

appellant cannot take this as a defence to escape from the clutches of

law.

9/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

9.He further submits the victim girl is 70% disabled as one

of her hands does not function and she is speech impaired. As per

Ex.P8, it is revealed that her IQ is 36 which is much lesser that the

normal IQ levels ie, 90. Therefore, though her physical disability

percentage was not explicitly stated, her mental disability was

proved which is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offences

under Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

10.He states that the minor contradictions and

discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are not fatal to the case of

the prosecution. The case of prosecution is based on a complete

chain of highly incriminating circumstances which irrefutably point

towards the guilt of the appellant and after scrutinizing the entire

oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly

convicted the appellant, and it does not warrant any interference of

this Court.

10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION :

11.The specific case of the prosecution is that, on

03.05.2022 at around 09:00 p.m., the victim girl/P.W.2 and her

mother/P.W.1 had gone to the Church that they usually go to. The

appellant is a pastor and he runs the Church. The victim’s mother left

her at the church under the appellant’s care and had gone out to meet

one Jermiah, who was examined by the accused as D.W.2.

According to the case of the prosecution, D.W.2 had borrowed a sum

of Rs. 2000/- form the victim’s mother and on the day of occurrence

he had called her to repay the money, for which she had left the

victim girl at the Church and had gone to meet D.W.2 to get the

money back.

12.When she returned, the appellant ran away and the

victim was found in a pathetic condition with her shirt unbuttoned

and pants rolled up. The next day when the victim’s mother inquired

11/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

about the situation to the victim girl, she had informed that the

appellant had sucked her breasts and had subjected her to aggravated

penetrative sexual assault.

13.To move forward, this Court is inclined to form the

following issues in furtherance of deciding the case on hand:

i.Whether there was previous enmity between P.W.1 and the

appellant’s family?

ii.Whether offences under Section 5(f) and 5(k) of the POCSO

Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016 were made out by the appellant?

iii.Whether the evidences submitted by the prosecution

irrefutably, in spite of the minor discrepancies, point

towards the guilt of the appellant?

14.On perusal of the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2,

admittedly, P.W.1 had gotten into a fight with the appellant in

12/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

Coutrallam, and at that time the appellant had asked P.W.1 not to

visit his Church then on. But it is revealed that after the said

occurrence, both the families did not stop meeting each other and

P.W.1 never stopped visiting the church on a regular basis. In fact,

the victim girl and P.W.1 had a habit of sleeping in the church

frequently, whenever there was a quarrel between P.W.1 and her

husband. It is further revealed that, even on the date of the alleged

occurrence, P.W.1 had left the victim girl under the care of the

appellant and his family members while she had to go out and meet

Jermiah. Moreover, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 had stayed over in the

Church that night and only had left for their home the next morning.

Therefore, the it was made clear that there was no previous enmity

between P.W.1 and the appellant’s family and they had been in an

amicable relationship even till the day of the alleged occurrence.

15.In the present case, the age of the victim is not under

challenge as it is well established by Ex.P1 which is the birth

13/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

certificate of the victim girl. It reveals that the victim girl was only

17 years 3 months and 3 days on the date of occurrence.

16.At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon Section 5(f)

and 5(k) of the POCSO act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the same are extracted

hereunder:

“Section 5(f) and 5(k) of the POCSO Act:

“5. Aggravated penetrative sexual

assault.—

(f) whoever being on the management or

staff of an educational institution or religious

institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a

child in that institution; or

(k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's

mental or physical disability, commits penetrative

sexual assault on the child;

is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual

assault.”

14/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities Act, 2016:

“92. Punishment for offences of

atrocities.—Whoever,—

(d) being in a position to dominate the

will of a child or woman with disability and uses

that position to exploit her sexually,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than six months but which

may extend to five years and with fine.””

17.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, it is

revealed that on the next day of the alleged occurrence, when P.W.1

inquired about the occurrence to victim girl, she stated that the

appellant had sucked her breasts and had subjected her to aggravated

penetrative sexual assault. When P.W.1 returned to pick up the

victim girl from the appellant’s care, she was found with her shirt

unbuttoned and her pants rolled up. The victim girl also

categorically stated the same in her chief examination, the relevant

portion of which is extracted hereunder:

15/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

ehd; ru;r;rpy; ,Ue;Njd;. vdJ mk;kh

“

Jl;L thq;Ftjw;fhf ntspNa Nghdhu;. mg;NghJ

gh];lu; khkh vd;id js;sptpl;L mtu; xz;Zf;F

,Uf;Fk; ,lj;ij itj;J vdJ

xz;Zf;F ,Uf;Fk; ,lj;jpy; itj;J mKf;fpdhu;.

(ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkp mtuJ gpwg;GWg;ig if

itj;J fhl;Lfpwhu;). mth; vdJ ,uz;L

khu;gfq;fisAk; fbj;jhu;. (ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkp

mtu; mtuJ khu;gfq;fis if itj;J

fhl;Lfpwhu;.)

”

18.Therefore, it can be seen that the evidences of P.W.1 and

the victim girl rightly corroborate with each other and there were no

contradictions found. Though, the appellant alleges that P.W.1 had

foisted a false case against him by tutoring the victim girl, the same

cannot be believed as victim girl is admittedly suffering from

moderate intellectual disability and this Court is not inclined to

assume that a girl with such mental disability can be successfully

tutored and be made to falsely depose against the appellant.

16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

19.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, the doctor who

examined the victim and issued a medical examination report which

was marked as Ex.P4, it is revealed that there were no injuries found

on the breasts of the victim girl. She had further stated that the

victim girl’s hymen was not intact and that there was no trace of

sexual intercourse. Relevant portions of her deposition are extracted

here under:

“3.vd;Dila gupNrhjidapy;

1.ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpapd; khu;gfj;jpy; fhak;

vJTk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; 2.rpWkpapd; fd;dpj;jpiu

fpope;jpUe;jJ vd;Wk; 3.clYwT nfhz;ljw;fhd

milahsk; ,y;iy vd;Wk; 4.ghjpf;fg;gl;l

rpWkpapd; rpWePu; gupNrhjidapy; fu;g;gj;jpw;fhd

gupNrhjidapy; nefl;bt; vd;Wk;

5.rpWkpaplkpUe;J nt[pdy; ];kpau;

Nrfupf;fg;gl;lJ vd;W tpgj;J gjpNtl;by;

gjpTnra;J rhd;W toq;fpNdd;. me;j rhd;W

(mrhM 4). ,J rk;ge;jkhf Ma;thsh; vd;id

tprhhpj;jhh;.

”

17/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

20.At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the

Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab v.

Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] wherein it was observed as

follows:

"In the absence of injury on the private part

of the prosecutrix, it cannot be concluded that the

incident had not taken place or the sexual intercourse

was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. The

prosecutrix being a small child of about nine years of

age, there could be no question of her giving consent

to sexual intercourse. The absence of injuries on the

private part of the prosecutrix can be of no

consequence in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

……..

In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed

considerations which have no material effect on the

veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies

in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless

the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be

allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution

18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the

tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are

factors which the courts should not overlook."

21.Keeping in mind what’s been stated above and also the

fact that the victim’s hymen was not found to be intact, this Court

feels that, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the victim

girl/P.W.2 and as such, the medical evidence sufficiently

corroborates the same.

22.The judgment also recognizes the innate hesitation a

woman experiences in speaking about the sexual trauma inflicted

upon her, particularly when the perpetrator is not a stranger but

someone closely associated with her family. Regrettably, society has

yet to overcome the stigma and moral judgment that continue to

attach themselves to such disclosures. Even when a victim musters

the courage to speak, she may not always find encouragement, or

19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

even acceptance, from her own parents, who may view such

disclosure as undesirable or damaging. To overcome these deep-

rooted psychological and social barriers and to ultimately approach

the police is neither immediate nor effortless; it is a process that

understandably consumes time. Viewed in this backdrop, and

recognizing that the reporting of sexual offences is far from a simple

or mechanical act, this Court is inclined to hold that the delay of

eight days between the date of occurrence and the lodging of the

complaint is wholly immaterial.

23.It is the contention of the prosecution that the

occurrence had taken place at the Church which had been run by the

appellant. The appellant states that the Church in question is neither

run by him nor his family members and that the prosecution failed to

prove that the church was run by him. This contention of the

appellant cannot be countenanced to for the simple reason that even

D.W.1 and D.W.2, who were examined on the side of the appellant

20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

clearly state in their chief examination that the church in question is

under the management of the appellant’s father. Further, no

documents were marked by the appellant to prove that the title of the

church does not belong to him or his father. Therefore, there is no

doubt in the management or ownership of the Church and the

occurrence clearly attracts Section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.

24.That been said, now it is pertinent to see whether the

offence attracts Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On perusal of the

evidence of P.W.7 and Ex. P8, it is revealed that P.W.2 has features

of moderate intellectual disability and her IQ is 36.

25.The relevant portions of the deposition of P.W.7, the

doctor who examined the mental ability of P.W.2 is extracted

hereunder:

21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

5. ehd; mtiu gupNrhjid nra;jNghJ

“

ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpf;F mwpTrhu; FiwghL kpjkhd

mstpy; ,Ue;jjhfTk; mjw;fhd fhuzq;fisAk;

mrhM8y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;Nsd;. ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpf;F

mwpTj;jpwd; FwpaPL 36 ,Ue;jJ vd;W

Fwpg;gpl;Ls;Nsd;.

6. xU ruhrup kdpjDf;F mwpTj;jpwd;

FwpaPL 90f;F mjpfkhf ,Uf;fNtz;Lk;.

mwpTj;jpwd; FwpaPL 70f;F fPNo ,Ue;jhy;

mwpTrhu;FiwghL ,Ug;gjhf fUjg;gLk;. ,J

rk;ge;jkhf Ma;thsu; vd;id tprhupj;jhu;.

”

26.On keen observation of the said records, it can be seen

that there is no mention of disability percentage as alleged by the

appellant. But this minor contradiction shall not deplete the case of

the prosecution as both the provisions namely, Section 5(k) of the

POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016 as extracted above, are observed to be

mentioning “physical or mental disability” and not just physical

disability. Since, the mental disability of the victim is proved beyond

22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

reasonable doubt, the contention of the appellant shall be

disregarded.

27.The appellant had further pointed out various

contradictions in the case of the prosecution. One of which is that

the prosecution failed examine any of the eyewitnesses. According

to P.W.1, she had left the victim girl at the church at around 09:00

PM on day of the occurrence. She had also stated that the usual

prayer time in the Church is 07:00 PM to 08:00 PM and that there

will be no prayer meets after that. This Court is also not inclined to

assume that there would have been devotees during the closing time

of the Church.

28.Another contention of the appellant was that, the

prosecution did not examine the close relatives of the appellant

namely, his mother-in-law, wife and father. This ground raised by the

appellant is nothing but absurd for the simple reason that the

23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

prosecution has no onus to examine the accused side interested

witnesses knowing that they eventually turn hostile to the

prosecution’s case.

29.In respect of both the aforesaid contentions raised by

the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that it was always

open to the appellant to examine the said persons as witnesses in

support of his case. Had such evidence been adduced, this Court

would have subjected the same to careful scrutiny and evaluated the

merits of the case in that light, exercising due caution. However, the

appellant, having failed to take any steps to examine such witnesses,

cannot now seek to draw adverse inferences or derive benefit from

their absence. Further though the appellant had examined D.W.2

(Jeromiah), wherein he states that P.W.1 did not give him any money

and he did not call her on the date of occurrence to pay her money

back, the appellant did not corroborate the said evidence further to

attract the confidence of this Court.

24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

30.At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State represented by

Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and another (2008) 17 SCC 587,

wherein it is held as follows:

"18.The High Court also held that as there were

some discrepancies and improvements in the statement of the

witnesses, their evidence should not be relied upon. In State

of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, [(1985) 1 SCC 505] this Court has

laid down the approach which should be followed by the

Court in such cases:

While appreciating the evidence of a

witness, the approach must be whether the evidence

of the witness read as a whole appears to have a

ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is

undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise

the evidence more particularly keeping in view the

deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out

in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find

out whether it is against the general tenor of the

evidence given by the witness and whether the

earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to

25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on

trivial matters not touching the core of the case,

hyper- technical approach by taking sentences torn

out of context here or there from the evidence,

attaching importance to some technical error

committed by the investigating officer not going to

the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit

rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court

before whom the witness gives evidence had the

opportunity to form the opinion about the general

tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate

court which had not this benefit will have to attach

due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the

trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and

formidable it would not be proper to reject the

evidence on the ground of minor variations or

infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even

honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some

details unrelated to the main incident because

power of observation, retention and reproduction

differ with individuals. Cross- examination is an

unequal duel between a rustic and refined

lawyer..................."

26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

Even otherwise, it has been said time and

again by this Court that while appreciating the

evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on

trivial matters without affecting the core of the

prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to

reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the

general tenor of the evidence given by the witness,

the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms

an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the

normal circumstances the appellate court would not

be justified to review it once again without

justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation,

which has to be taken note of. Difference in some

minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the

core of the prosecution case, even if present, that

itself would not prompt the court to reject the

evidence on minor variations and discrepancies.”

31.In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that all

the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor in nature

and do not in any way shake the core of the prosecution’s case.

27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

32.It is relevant to rely upon Section 29 of the POCSO Act

which states as follow:

“29. Presumption as to certain offences.—

Where a person is prosecuted for committing or

abetting or attempting to commit any offence under

sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special

Court shall presume, that such person has committed

or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the

case may be unless the contrary is proved.”

33.Though this presumption is not absolute, the accused

did not rise any doubt that is significant enough to disprove the case

of the prosecution and per contra, the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubts.

34.The Trial Court has correctly applied Section 42 of the

POCSO Act, and rightly awarded the higher punishment prescribed

under Section 6 of the Act, considering that the offence under

Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 also

28/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

prescribes a minimum punishment. This Court finds no perversity,

illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference

with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction. The prosecution

evidence is found to be reliable, cogent, and trustworthy. The Trial

Court's appreciation of evidence is in consonance with the statutory

scheme of POCSO Act and the principles governing sexual offence

cases.

35.The cumulative effect of the circumstances of the

admissible public documents establishing the victim's age, the

unshaken testimony of the victim, medical findings that the hymen

of the victim is not intact, the statutory presumption under Section

29 of the POCSO Act, and failure of the appellant to rebut the

presumption, incontrovertibly establishes the guilt of the appellant.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the conviction of the

appellant does not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or

evidentiary deficiency.

29/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

36.In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this

appeal. The conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 6

of the POCSO Act is sustained. The sentence imposed by the learned

Trial Court is appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the

offence.

37.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. No

costs.

[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]

10.02.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

PS

30/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

To

1.The Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases

under POCSO Act, Srivilliputhur.

2.The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Rajapalayam. Station,

Karur District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

31/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

AND

R. POORNIMA, J.

PS

Pre-Delivery Judgment made in

Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023

10.02.2026

32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis