SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and order of the Mahila Court / Special Court for cases under POCSO Act / Children's Court, Chennai in S.C.No.121 of 2016, on 9/9/2019, in which the present appellant was convicted and sentenced as detailed hereunder : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_300_LAWS(MAD)1_2022_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a condensed form is as follows :

(3.) Mr.M.Vijayan for Mrs.S.Premakumari, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case vested on circumstantial evidence filled with conjectures and surmises to arrive at the desired result of the prosecution of proving the guilt of the appellant. According to him, when there's no direct eye witness, there ought to be a solid chain of events which cannot lead to any other inference other than the guilt of the accused. It is also his further contention that the prosecution has miserably failed in this aspect and that the trial court also did not take a pragmatic approach while analyzing the prosecution side witnesses and documentary evidence. It is also his contention that even as per the evidence of the appellant he had consumed ganja on the night of 21/11/2015 and woke up the next day only at about 3.00 p.m. His another contention is that the appellant never went into hiding and was very much available in the station and the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O) who enquired into the allegation of the dowry harassment had categorically stated that he enquired the appellant on 22/11/2015.