RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the convict, who was tried as an adult and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment though he was juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 14/12/2017 at about 10.00 a.m., 4 years old girl child while walking along with her maternal grand-mother Kumarakkal along the Komberipatti to Semanampatti road, the appellant who was a juvenile at that point of time followed them and had offerred lift to them in his two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-57- AV-1765. He has taken them in his two-wheeler upto the house of Kumarakkal. He told her that he will drop the minor girl at Balwadi but taken her to the graveyard near a hill and committed aggravated sexual assault. When the 4 years old child resisted and tried to raise an alarm, he closed her mouth, smothered and caused her death. Kumarakkal, who later went to Balwadi to bring home the child, was informed the child did not come to Balwadi. Suspecting foul play, she went in search of the child, meanwhile Thiru.Jeyakannan the father of the child returned to the village after visiting the temple at Melmaruvathur. He along with other villagers joined the search. On the information given by some of the villagers, they zeroed down, the spot where the minor girl was seen alive along with the appellant they went searched near the Ciyakani Hill and found the child partly buried under a heap of stones gravels, her leg exposed. The body was exhumed. Complaint was given to the respondent police by the father of the victim, they registered the written complaint Ex.P1 and commenced the investigation. On the next day, i.e., on 15/12/2017 the accused Rajkumar was arrested and after being ascertaining his age and prima facie satisfaction that he is juvenile, he was sent to the Juvenile Home at Salem.

(3.) On completion of investigation, Final Report was filed in the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. The learned Sessions Judge after furnishing the copies of the document relied by the prosecution framed the charges under Ss. 363, 302, 379, 201 IPC and Sec. 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.