STATE Vs. SAMIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is arising out of murder of a victim child aged about 7 years, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community and was done to death after an aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the deceased victim child (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased child').

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Nagooran, (P.W.1), who is the father of the deceased child had entered into a marriage with the 3rd wife, namely, Selvi, a mentally retarded and out of the said marriage, two children were born, one is the deceased child and another one was aged about 5 years. The accused had developed friendship with the deceased child to fulfil his sexual desire. On 30/6/2020 at about 03. :00pm, in order to satisfy his lust, he had taken the deceased girl to the Kali Temple. Thereafter, the accused took her to an isolated place and committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assult upon her and had ravished the child's genitalia. Later on, the accused, fearing that the deceased child would reveal the commision of offence to others, dashed her head against a tree and also pierced the face and neck of the deceased child and threw the body into a dried pond and covered the body of the deceased child with leaves and shrubs to screen the evidence.

(3.) The father of the deceased child (P.W.1) lodged a complaint (Ex.P. 1) to the respondent Police, on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.119 of 2020 came to be registered (Ex.P.18) initially for offences under Girl Missing under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, it was altered into one of Ss. 364, 302 and 201 IPC by way of alteration report (Ex.P.20) and again altered into Ss. 364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC r/w 5(m), 5(j)(iv), 6(1) of POCSO Act and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act (Ex.P.23). The respondent police, after enquiry, arrested the accused and after a detailed investigation by the Deputy Superintenent of Police (as the case has been registered under SC/ST Act, along with other IPC offences), a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, which was subsequently, made over to the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai as per Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused, had examined 18 witnesses, marked 38 documents and exhibited 8 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as as follows: