GNANSIGAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16/12/2013 when P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty at the Vellakovil Police Station, Thiruppur District, upon receipt of the information, he went to the scene of occurrence and got a statement from P.W.1/the mother of the victim child, to the effect that P.W.1 was living with her family consisting of her husband, a daughter aged 15 years, and a son aged 13 years. The daughter was studying in 9th std in high school. While so, she returned to home at about 6.00 P.M. Since previously she and her daughter were having the usual menstruation cycle on the same dates, since on the said date, her daughter did not get her periods, she enquired her. Immediately, her daughter started crying and she revealed to her that the accused, the old man who is the owner of the Mercy stores, had some days before pulled her hand and by forcing her, removed her clothes and had intercourse with her. Upon hearing P.W.1 become shell shocked, thereafter, immediately, she went to her brother/P.W.2/Jothivel's house, who was residing at the next street. She went and told to Jothivel as to what was happened to her daughter, and thereafter, she and her brother came back to her home. However, the door was locked, upon breaking open the door, they found that her daughter hanging herself by using P.W.1's Saree. They brought her down but was found dead. Thereafter, the body was straight away taken to the hospital.

(2.) On the strength of the said statement given to him at about 18.30 hours, the case in Crime No.392 of 2013 was registered at 20.00 hours, thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation. Initially, P.W.13, took up the investigation, and thereafter, P.W.14, had continued the investigation and completed the investigation, and laid a charge sheet before the Trial Court, proposing the accused guild of the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sec. 306 of I.P.C. The case was taken on file as Spl. S.C. No.12 of 2014. On 11/11/2014, charges were framed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sec. 306 of I.P.C. Upon being questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

(3.) So as to bring home the charges, the mother of the victim child was examined as P.W.1; P.W.1 has spoken about the revelations of her daughter and immediately rushing to her brother's house, and then both immediately rushing back to her house, and found her daughter dead. The brother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2, who also spoke about the fact that her sister, who was residing near the next street, came to his house, and upon hearing, both of them went back to her house, there they found that the child had committed suicide by hanging herself. Her another brother was also residing along with P.W.2 was examined as P.W.3, who also corroborated the same version of P.W.2. A neighbour, one Pandian, who heard about the incident as hearsay, was examined as P.W.4. Another neighbour, one Saravanan, who came to the house of P.W.1, upon hearing the commotion to find that the victim child had committed suicide by hanging, was examined as P.W.5. The Doctor, who examined the accused and issued Potency Certificate, was examined as P.W.6. The another Doctor, who also examined the accused along with P.W.6, was examined as P.W.7. The witness to the Observation Mahazar and Rough sketch, namely, one Subramani, was examined as P.W.8. The Photographer, who took the pictures of the victim child found hanging at her home, was examined as P.W.9. The Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. was examined as P.W.10. The SubInspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report, by obtaining the statement of P.W.1, was examined as P.W.11. The Dr.Kulainthavelu, Civil Surgeon of Forensic medicine, who conducted the Postmortem of the dead body of the victim child, was examined as P.W.12. Both the Investigating Officers of this case were examined as P.W.13 and P.W.14.