HAKKIM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a man by appearance, but an animal by behaviour, is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on his 12 years old daughter, to be witnessed by his own wife. He stands convicted for offence under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, he is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge, as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 13 documents were marked and no material object was marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the mother of P.W.2 and the wife of the accused. She has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. She has also spoken about her complaint to the Jamadhars and finally to the police. P.W.2, the victim girl has stated that when she was sleeping on the cot, the accused laid on her, removed her chudidhar pant and panties and inserted his penis into her vagina, though she resisted. Incidentally her mother also entered into the house and noticed the occurrence. She has further stated that P.W.1 questioned the accused as to how dare he was to have sex with his own daughter. She has further stated about the statement made to the police and the Magistrate. P.W.3 is a relative of P.W.1. He has stated that P.W.1 informed him about the occurrence, immediately after the occurrence. P.Ws.4 and 5 are Jamadhars. They have stated that P.W.1 made a complaint to the Jamadhars about the above occurrence. They have further stated that when they summoned, the accused confessed to his guilt and gave a statement in writing, thereby seeking admonition. Thereafter, according to them, they wanted P.W.1 to go to the police with a complaint. P.Ws.6 and 7 are also Jamadhars, who also spoken to the same facts. P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and a rough sketch. P.W.9-Dr. Murugalakshmi, has spoken about the medical examination conducted on P.W.2 and her opinion. P.W.10- Dr. Seeman has stated that on examination, he found that P.W.2 was aged 15 to 18 years. P.W.11, Dr. Jayasingh, has stated that he examined the accused on 22.11.2013 and found that he was sexually potential to have sexual intercourse with a female. P.W.12 is the Headmaster of the school, where P.W.2 was studying. She has stated that according to the school records, the date of birth of P.W.2 is 14.7.2001. Ex.P8 is the School Record Sheet. P.W.13, the learned Judicial Magistrate has stated that she has recorded the statement of P.W.2 under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1, on 04.01.201 P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.