BANUDURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dtd. 11/8/2023 in Spl.SC.No.82 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Tiruvannamalai, by which he was convicted for the offence under Sec. 354(A) of IPC, Sec. 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act, 2012, Sec. 451 of IPC & Sec. 10 r/w 9(l) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec. 506(i) of the IPC and sentenced as follows:

(2.) (i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was the landlord of the premises in which the victim aged about 13 years and her mother were staying as tenants; that on 12/6/2020 at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim was playing on the terrace, the appellant had committed sexual assault by inappropriately touching the breast and the hip of the victim, and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the victim's mother had not paid rent for the premises and therefore, the appellant had asked the victim to vacate the premises; that in order to wreak vengeance on the appellant, the complaint has been foisted; that independent witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution i.e., PW4, PW5 and PW6, turned hostile; that the complaint was lodged belatedly four days after the alleged occurrence; that PW1 was working in a Home meant for victims under the POCSO Act; that the victim was also staying in the Home; that it was at the instance of the person managing the Home, the instant complaint was lodged to arm-twist the appellant; and that in view of the inconsistencies in the statement of the victim, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and prayed for acquittal.