Closure report resubmitted as charge sheet
16. On perusal of the closure report (Ex.P6), it is seen that during investigation around 36 witnesses examined including victim girl (PW3), her parents (PW1 & PW2), daughters and son of the appellant, School Teachers, neighbours, Tuition mates of the victim girl and others. LW32 is Priyadharshini, to whom the victim girl (PW3) is said to have informed about the sexual assault made by the appellant. It is seen that the victim girl (PW3) failed in two subjects (Mathematics and Social Science) and she had never stated anything to Headmistress (PW4) and Teacher (PW5) about the sexual assault made by the appellant. Thus, the earlier statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the evidence of the victim girl recorded during trial are with exaggerations and contradictions and does not inspire confidence and it is without any correlation. The Investigating Officer after detailed enquiry filed closure report (Ex.P6) on 14.04.2014 and thereafter, on 30.10.2014 an alteration report (Ex.P5) filed, finally, affidavit (Ex.P7) filed by the Investigating Officer for re-submitting the charge sheet. It is strange to see that in the resubmitted charge sheet, none of the witnesses have been re-examined or any clarification sought, clarified, no fresh material collected. The Investigating Officer admitted the contradiction of PW1, PW2 and PW9, who had motive against the appellant. The dispute on the Founders Day in hoisting the flag is confirmed by PW8 and PW12.
Victim’s evidence is with exaggerations and contradictions
17. As discussed above, there are contradictions between the evidence of the victim girl (PW3), her parents (PW1 & PW2) and the Headmistress (PW4), Class Teacher (PW5) of the victim girl. Added to it, the evidence of the victim girl (PW3) is with exaggerations and contradictions, which does not inspire confidence to sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.
Victim girl’s evidence was not corroborated with independent witnesses
18. Having careful look at the evidence of child witness/victim girl (PW3), this Court is of the opinion that reliance cannot be placed on her testimony since it is not corroborated by any independent and reliable evidence. It is well settled that a child witness is prone to tutoring and hence the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct and circumstantial. In this case, on weighing carefully the testimony of victim girl (PW3), it is with contradictions and unreliable. Hence, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
19. The trial Court reasoning that in view of Section 29 of the Act, the appellant is convicted, is on a wrong premise. Section 29 of the Act would come into play only after the prosecution proves the basic and foundational facts against the appellant and thereafter, the same to be dislodged either by way of producing witnesses or by way of cross examination. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the basic and foundational facts. On the other hand, there are positive evidence in favour of the appellant.
20. Thus, looking the case from any angle, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
ACCUSED ACQUITTED.
Party
Aranganathan vs. STATE Represented by Inspector of Police, W8-All Women Police Station, Tirumangalam, Crime No.334 of 2014, Chennai – Crl.A. No. 535 of 2016 – 17.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1028307
