Delay in Filing Complaint Does Not Vitiate Prosecution Case, Delay Satisfactorily Explained: Madras High Court

Madras High Court delivered a significant ruling in Nanjappan v. State, reducing the life imprisonment sentence of the appellant to 10 years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court upheld the conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault but acquitted the accused of criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case: The case originated from an incident on March 6, 2018, in Coimbatore, where the accused, Nanjappan, allegedly sexually assaulted a 4½-year-old child. The victim’s mother reported the incident ten days later, on March 16, 2018, following the family’s initial hesitation due to threats. The appellant was convicted by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases and sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with additional imprisonment for criminal intimidation.

The appellant was convicted under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for inserting his finger into the victim’s vagina. The victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, established the occurrence of the assault. The appellant contested his identity, claiming to be an agriculturist and not a tailor as the victim referred to him. However, the court found sufficient evidence from witnesses confirming the accused’s identity.

The trial court had also convicted the appellant under Section 506(i) IPC for threatening the victim’s mother. The High Court, however, found insufficient evidence to support this charge, as the victim's mother did not testify to the threats in court.

The appellant argued that the 10-day delay in filing the police complaint undermined the credibility of the case. The court found the delay satisfactorily explained by the family's fear of retribution and involvement of the Child Help Line Centre.

The appellant’s defense of mistaken identity, based on the victim referring to the accused as a "Tailor," was dismissed. The prosecution produced multiple witnesses who identified the accused as a tailor, including the landlord and the victim’s family. The court held that the identity of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt.

"The reference made by the child to the aggressor as a tailor would only refer to the accused, and hence, it cannot be said to be a case of mistaken identity," the court ruled [Paras 14-15].

The court upheld the appellant's conviction under the POCSO Act. The victim’s testimony and the corroborating medical evidence were deemed reliable.

"On an overall consideration of the statements made by the victim child… the fact that the accused had sexually assaulted the victim child… stands established beyond reasonable doubt," the judgment stated [Para 25].

The court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 506(i) IPC due to lack of evidence. The victim's mother did not testify to any threats made by the accused, and no other witnesses corroborated the intimidation claim.

"In the absence of any other evidence, it requires to be held that the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC has not been established," the court held [Para 28].

The court found that while the conviction under the POCSO Act was justified, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. Considering the absence of first medical evidence from the hospital where the victim was initially taken, the court reduced the sentence to 10 years of imprisonment, consistent with the pre-amended POCSO Act, which provided for a minimum sentence of 10 years.

"We are of the view that the punishment awarded by the trial Court… could be reduced to the minimum sentence of 10 years, as provided in the pre-amended provision of Section 6," the court ruled [Para 33].

The Madras High Court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act but reduced the life sentence to 10 years. The charge of criminal intimidation under the IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence. The court confirmed the fine of Rs. 55,000 imposed by the trial court and allowed the appellant to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2024

Nanjappan v. State, Crl.A.No. 340 of 2021