M. MURALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal is filed by the de facto complainant against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 28/3/2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District.

(2.) The first respondent police registered a case against the 3rd respondent/accused herein in Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offence under Sec. 354 (A) of IPC and Ss. 9 (f), 9(m), 9(k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [ hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After completing the investigation, they have filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvallur, since the offence is against a girl child. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 and charges were framed against the 3rd respondent for the offence under Ss. 342, 354(A)(1)(i), 376 (1) (f) (i) IPC and Sec. 5 (m) punishable under Sec. 6, 7 punishable under Sec. 8, 9(f), (k) and (m) punishable under Sec. 10 of the POCSO Act.

(3.) In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and no material object was produced. After examining the prosecution witnesses when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused through questioning under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.