CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, in Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2013, for charges under Sections-376 Penal Code r/w Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. The learned trial Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of the charges under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, with default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment; and five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

(2.) The case against the accused/appellant is that, on 02.06.2013 at about 8.30 a.m., while the victim girl aged about 11 years along with her niece aged about 12 years was plucking leaves for the goats at the cashew grove of one Vathiar, the accused came there and told them that if they come to his grandfather's cashew grove, there are lot of neem leaves for the goats. Believing his words, the victim and her niece went there for collecting the leaves. While the victim was carrying the leaves over her head and returning along with her niece, the accused beat on the back of the victim and hugged both of them. The victim's niece escaped from that place, but, the victim was caught hold of by the accused, who subjected her to sexual offence. Thus, the accused was charged for the offences as stated above.

(3.) Before the trial court, in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 19, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and produced MOs1 to 4. On the side of the accused, one person was examined as DW1 and one document was marked as Ex.D1.