SEMBU SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

(2.) The Appellant was tried by the Special Court for cases under Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act/Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai, for offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in S.C.302 of 2016. The Sessions Judge, after examining 10 prosecution witnesses, 2 defence witnesses and 21 Exhibits along with 2 material objects found the accused guilty and sentenced him to under 7 years R.I and imposed fine of Rs.50,000/-. Also awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- payable by the State Government from the victim compensation Fund or other Fund or Scheme as prescribed under Rule 7(4) & (5) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(3.) Aggrieved by the Conviction and Sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal, on the ground that there is no proper identification of the accused during the investigation and in the trial. The victim was not examined since he died during trial. The mother of the victim admits in the cross examination that the victim did not disclose the name of the assailant. They were several North Indian carpenters working at the alleged place of crime (Hotel Rohini International, T.Nagar, Chennai). The defence witnesses D.W.1 who was the Manager of the Hotel Rohini International has categorically stated that, no such incident occurred in his hotel premises and DW-2, the brother of the accused has deposed that his brother voluntarily went to the police Station for interrogation but he was taken into custody by police on false promise and case was foisted against him. The defence evidence was not taken note by the trial court in proper perspective.