CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Among these appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2019 is by the first accused in S.C.No.683 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (POCSO), Ernakulam and Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2019 is by the second accused in the said case. The appellants challenge in these appeals their conviction and sentence in the said case.

(2.) The accusation against the first accused in the case in essence is that on 03.11.2016, at about 11.45 a.m., the first accused has inserted his finger into the vagina of the victim girl aged 3¾ years at the premises of the pre-school where the victim girl was attending, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) and Sections 5(f) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act). The accusation against the second accused in the case is that the second accused who is working as a teacher in the pre-school, has failed to report the sexual assault to which the victim girl was subjected to, on receiving information regarding the same from the victim girl, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 19(1) read with Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act.

(3.) On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12 and proved 11 documents through them as Ext.P1 to Ext.P11. Among the witnesses examined, PW1 is the mother of the victim girl, PW2 is the victim girl herself, PW3 is the Principal of the pre-school, PW5 is the doctor to whom the victim girl was taken first by her parents, PW6 is the doctor who examined the victim girl on a reference by the police and PW11 is the Investigating Officer in the case. Among the witnesses, PW1 has also identified MO1 plastic chair. Among the documents, Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement proved by PW1, Ext.P2 is the medical certificate proved by PW5, Ext.P3 is the medical certificate proved by PW6 and Ext.P10 is the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). Since the trial court did not consider the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the second accused examined two witnesses on her side as DW1 and DW2, when called upon to enter on her defence.