Kadhar Moidheen v. The State Rep by Its,

JUDGM E N T This Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused challenging the Magalir Neethimandrum (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur wherein the appellant / accused was found guilty for the offence under Sections 9(f) 9(l) and 9 (m) r/w. Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act, 2012) and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 years for each offence and the sentences to run concurrently.

¶2The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is given hereunder: The Victims are two minors namely 'X' and 'Y' who are aged 12 years and 10 years respectively. The defacto complainant who is the mother of the victims sent the minor girls to the Mosque situated at Thirumuruganpoondi, Tiruppur to learn Arabic language. The accused Kadhar Moidheen was a Hajarath / Arabic Teacher in the said Mosque. The Arabic classes were being conducted from 6.30 a.m to 7.15 a.m at morning hours and from 6.00 p.m. to

6.30 p.m in the evening time. On 01.05.2017, the minor girls 'X' and 'Y' went to Madharsha/ Mosque to learn Arabic and after the classes got over, when they were about to return home, the accused took the minor girls 'X' and 'Y' to the terrace of the Mosque, hugged both victims, kissed and pressed their breasts with his hands and asked minor girls 'X' and 'Y' to rub his male organ and forced them to place it in their mouth and sat between them and inserted his fingers into their vagina and thereby committed penetrative sexual assault on the victims 'X' and 'Y'. He committed the same sexual assault repeatedly till

13.05.2017.

¶3Upon the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the mother of the victims / defacto complainant on 07.07.2017 at about 15.00 hours, P.W.4, Ayyammal, the then Sub Inspector of Police who was in charge in the All Women Police Station North, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District, registered a case in Crime No.17/2017 (Ex.P7) under Sections 9 (f), (l), (m) r/w. Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012. On receipt of the copy of First Information Report, P.W.14 Mohana Sundhari, the Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation on the same day. She went to the scene of occurrence/Mosque, at about 4.30 p.m., and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P13) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P14) in the presence of witnesses P.W.13 Ashraf and one Noor Islam. P.W.14 examined the witnesses Aabitha Banu, Afshana Jerin, Fowzia, Ibrahim, Ramji, Sameem, Arif Mohamed, Aneez Nazeer, Abdul Rahman, Ashraf, Noor Islam by recording their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., The minor victims 'X' and 'Y' were sent to the Tiruppur Government Hospital for medical examination with the Police Constable Manimegalai. On 13.07.2017, on surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Theni, the accused was sent to judicial custody.

¶4On enquiry by the learned Mahila Judge, Tiruppur, the accused gave confession in the presence of P.W.9 Manoharan and one Mohammed Sabeer. Upon the requisition, the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, on 24.07.2017, the Statements of the victims 'X' and 'Y' were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., (Ex.P15 series) and the accused was sent for medical examination. Dr.Prakash (P.W.10) and Dr.Pavithra (P.W.12) of Government Hospital, Tiruppur conducted the medical examination of the accused and the victims. P.W.14 recorded the statement of the Doctors, collected medical records and examined the constables who accompanied the victims for medical examination, thereby P.W.14 altered the charges from Section 9 (f), (l), (m) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 to Section 5 (f), (l), (m) r/w. Section 6 (2 counts) of POCSO Act, 2012 and prepared Charge Alteration Report (Ex.P16). The final report was filed under Section 5 (f), (l), (m) r/w. 6 (2 counts) of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶5On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case records relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

¶6Upon hearing the Public Prosecutor, charges were framed under Section 5 (f), (l), (m) r/w. Section 6 (2 counts) of POCSO Act, 2012. When, the said Charges were duly read and explained to the accused, he denied the same. Hence the trial was ordered. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 16 Exhibits. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the accused.

¶7Heard Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the Respondent.

¶8Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the accused being a teacher shouted at the brother of the victims 'X' and 'Y' as he has not obeyed his commends. Hence, at the instance of the brother of the victims, through P.W.4, a false case has been foisted against the accused to wreak vengeance.

¶9Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the Respondent vehemently contended that the victims 'X' and 'Y' who were aged 12 and 10 years respectively, were sent to the Mosque to learn Arabic language, their mother tongue. In the pious place, the accused who is supposed to act as a protector of the children, committed sexual assault upon the minor victims and the prosecution witnesses namely the minor victims 'X' and 'Y' and their family members, Doctors have clearly spoken about the offence committed by the accused. Thereby the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Though the charges were framed under Section 5 (f) (l), (m) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the accused was convicted under Sections 9(f) r/w. 10, 9(l) r/w. 10 and 9 (m) r/w. 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year for each offence and the above sentences are to run concurrently. It is a well reasoned order which needs no interference by this Court.

¶10The victim minor girls 'X' and 'Y' have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3,Aneez is the head man of the Thirumuruganpoondi Mosque, Tiruppur, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the parents and P.W.6 is the grandmother of the minor victims 'X' and 'Y'. P.W.7 Nazeer and P.W.8 Abdul Rahman are the witnesses who have spoken about P.W.3 reporting about the offence committed by the accused. P.W.9 Manoharan, is the confession statement witness. P.W.10 Dr.Prakash is the medical officer who examined the accused and issued medical certificates (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6). P.W.11 Ayyammal, is the then Sub Inspector of Police who registered First Information Report against the accused. P.W.12, Dr.Pavithra conducted medical examination on the victims and produced medical records Ex.P8 and Ex.P11. P.W.13 Ashraf is the Observation Mahazar witness. P.W.14 Mohana Sundhari, is the Inspector of Police Crl.A.No.694oofo2018 (Investigating Officer).

¶11P.W.1, victim 'X' has deposed as extracted hereunder: "vjpup fhju; ikjPid vdf;Fj; bjupa[k/; mtu; v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;J vd;ida[k;. vd; jk;gp u?kj;Jy;yh. vd; j';if 'Y' Mfpnahiu mugp XJtjw;fhf miHj;jhu;/ mjdhy; mugp fw;gjw;fhf eh';fs; g{z;oapy; cs;s kju;!htpw;F nghndhk;/ vd;Dld; 'Y'k; mugp fw;gjw;fhf m';F te;jhu;/ nk khjk; 1k; njjp 2017k; tUlk; eh';fs; mugp fw;Wf; bfhs;tjw;fhf fhiy 06/00 kzpf;F nghapUe;njhk;/ mg;nghJ ?$uj; fhju; ikjPd; vd;ida[k; 'Y'k; bkhl;il khof;F tuf;brhd;dhu;/ v';fis nkhl;lhupy; jz;zPu; tUfpwjh vd;W ghu;f;fr; brhd;dhu;/ ehd; vl;og; ghu;j;Jf; bfhz;oUe;njd;/ vdf;F vl;l khl;o';fpwJ vd;W vd;id Jhf;fp tpl;lhu;/ mtu; vd;id fl;og;gpoj;jhu;/ vd;id Kj;jk; bfhLf;fr; brhd;dhu;/ ehd; ju khl;nld; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ ,d;bdhU ehs; vd;id ghj;UPkpw;Fs; Tl;og; ngha; Kj;jk; nfl;lhu;/ ehd; ju khl;nld; vd;W Crl.A.No.694oofo2018 bfhd;ndd;/ vd; a{upd; nghFk; ,lj;jpy; if itj;jhu;/ ehd; ntz;lhk; vd;W brhy;yp ifia jl;otpl;nld;/ gpd;g[ khu;gfj;jpy; if itj;J mGj;jpdhu;/ nk khjj;jpy; eh';fs; nghd nghJ ,gg; o ele;jJ/ ghj;UPkpw;F Tl;og; ngha; mtu; a{upd; nghFk; ,lj;ij jlt brhd;dhu;/ ehd; gz;z khl;nld; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ xU ehs; vd;ida[k; 'Y' oiaa[k; bkhl;il khof;F tur;brhy;yp v';fs; ,uz;L ngiua[k; Jhf;fp beUf;fp fl;og; gpoj;J v';fSf;F Kj;jk; bfhLj;jhu;/ xU ehs; ghj;UPkpw;Fs; Tl;og; nghd nghJ vd; jk;gp ,u?kj;Jy;yh gpd;dho te;J ghu;j;J tpl;lhd;/ vd; jk;gpaplk; ?uj; eP ahu; fpl;ila[k; brhy;yf; TlhJd;D brhd;dhu;/ vd; jk;gp mk;khtplk; mf;fhit kjurhtpw;F mDg;ghjP';f. brhd;dhd;/ mk;kh vd;id tprhupj;jhu;/ mk;kh nfl;l nghJ mk;khtplk; ehd; ele;jij brhd;ndd;/ mk;kh vd;dplk; ,dpnky; kjurhtpw;F nghf ntz;lhk; vd;W brhd;dhu;/ mjpypUe;J ehd; kjuhrhtpw;F nghf tpy;iy/"

¶12The other victim '?' has deposed as under: vjpup fhju; ikjPd; v';fs; " A$uj;/ ehd; mugp gog;gjw;fhf gs;spthrYf;F nghndd;/ ehd; Ie;jhk; tFg;g[ gof;Fk; nghJ mugp gog;gjw;fhf gs;spthrYf;F nghndd;/ ehDk;. vd; jk;gp ignuh!; nghndhk;/ mg;nghJ A$uj; vd;ida[k;. 'X' Ia[k; bkhl;il khof;F Tl;og; ngha; fl;og; gpoj;J Kj;jk; bfhLj;jhu;/ mtu; FP;rhkzpia jlt brhd;dhu;/ gpd;g[ vd;Dila xd;Df;F nghFk; ,lj;jpy; bjhl;lhu;/ ehd; ,ijg; gw;wp vd; mk;khtplk; brhd;ndd;/ mk;kh vd;id kjurhtpw;F ,dpnky; nghf ntz;lhk; vd;W brhd;dhu;/ ,bjy;yhk; ntW ntW ehspy; ele;jJ/

¶13P.W.3 Aneez who is the Head man of Thirumurugan Poondi Mosque, Tiruppur has stated that upon the request of the grand mother of the victims, he enquired the accused.

¶14It is relevant to note that though P.W.6 / grand mother of the victims asked about the incident, the minor victim did not tell anything against the accused. It appears that P.W.3 enquired the accused and the accused refuted all the allegations put forth against him. Therefore the evidence of P.W.3 would no way strengthen the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the parents also got significance in deciding the case. The victim happens to be the minor girls. Their parent lodged the complaint. P.W.4. Aabitha Banu who is the mother of the minor victim girls (P.W.1 and P.W.2) deposed that her two minor daughters 'X' and 'Y' used to go to Madharsha at Thirumurugan poondi for learning Arabic, twice a day i.e., 6.00 a.m to 7.00 a.m in the morning and 5.00 p.m to 6 p.m in the evening. She knows the accused and he is working as a Hajrath in the Madharsha. In the year 2017, 5th month, her minor daughters did not return home from Madharshan by 7.00 p.m. She sent her son Rahamathullah to the Madharsha to pick up the victims. Her son came and told that the accused by keeping the victim inside, told that the victims did not attend the class. Her son Rahamathulla told her not to send his sisters to Madharsha and when she enquired his son, she came to know that the accused misbehaved with her daughters. She would further state that when she enquired her daughters with regard to the same, they told that they were taken to the terrace where he hugged them and made them to remove his pants and asked them to kiss the male organ by holding it and threatened them not to disclose the same to their mother. Thereafter, she went to Madharsha along with her brother in law Muhammed Aarif, Nazeerbai, Asaratbai and gave letter narrating the above said misdeeds of the accused. When the accused was enquired about the same by the Haji, the accused told that he did not commit any offence. Hence the Haji throw away the letter. Thereafter she went to the Police Station and on her narration, the complaint was recorded by the Police and it was read over to her and she admitted the same and appended her signature in the complaint (Ex.P1).

¶15P.W.5-Ramji who is the father of the victims, had deposed that a year ago, one day, his daughter did not go Madharsha: when he asked about it, she did not tell any thing. When his mother enquired about this, she told that she was not interested to go to Madharsha and after compelling her, she told that the accused misbehaved with her and he touched her chest and made her to touch his private male organ. He along with his minor children made a complaint to the head man of the Mosque and stopped sending his children to Mosque. He also came to know that the accused misbehaved with other children too.

¶16It is the evidence of Sameem, Paternal Grandfather of the victims that an year ago, his granddaughter after returning from Madharsha, she was not found to be normal and when he enquired her, she told that the Arabic Teacher was not behaving in a proper manner and she further told him that she would not go to Madharsha. On enquiry, his granddaughter told him that the accused kissed the victims, touched the private part and threatened them not to disclose the same to her inmates of the house. It is the further evidence of P.W.5 that the victim told him not to ask the same to Hajarath and not to tell her father. However, they enquired the accused, and he told that nothing had happened as alleged. He told the head man that he would not send his grandchildren to Madharsha any more. The head man did not take any action though they informed through Jamath. The parents of the other affected girls had also come there and given complaint. However, no action was taken against the accused.

¶17P.W.7. Nazeer, has spoken about the arguments that had taken place between the Mosque Head man Alaudin, the junior paternal uncle of the minor victim girl and two other persons. To that effect even after two days, no action was taken by the Mosque head man. The Mosque headman told that he enquired the accused and he made a promise on the Quran and stated that nothing had happened and was thrown out by the Head man.

¶18P.W.8 Abdul Rahman / independent witness who is a neighbour of the defacto compensation has corroborated the evidence of P.W.7.

¶19P.W.9/ Manoharan, who was the member of Thowheed Jamath has deposed that he came to know about the occurrence from the parents of the victims and they gave complaint against the accused. Since no action was taken by them, they lodged a complaint before the Tiruppur All Women Police Station. He along with Mohammed Sabeer went to Police Station where they were examined by the Police and in the Police Station, they saw the accused who was enquired by the Police and his confession was recorded. He has identified his signature found in the confession statement.

¶20As regards the potency certificate of the accused, Dr.Prakash, (P.W.10 ) deposed that the accused was produced before him based on the order of the Court and on medical examination, he issued the Accident Register and medical Certificate (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6).

¶21Dr.Pavithra, P.W.12 is the Doctor who has done the medical examination on the victims. When P.W.12 enquired the victim 'X', she told that her Tuition master sexually harassed her from 01.05.2017 till 13.05.2017. On the same day, the other victim 'Y' girl was produced before her and when she was enquired, she reiterated the above said details. Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 are Accident Registers and Medical Certificates.

¶22P.W.11 Ayyammal, Sub Inspector of All women Police, Tiruppur North All Woman Police Station, registered the case in Crime No,17/2017. On receipt of the complaint from P.W.4, the case was registered under Section 9(f), 9(l), 9(m) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶23Upon the receipt of the First Information Report, P.W14, Mohana Sundari who is the Investigating Officer commenced investigation of the case, by proceeding to the scene of occurrence, Thirumuruganpoondi Mosque and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough sketch (Ex.P13 and ExP14). The statements of witnesses viz., Aabitha Banu, Victims 'X' and 'Y', Ibrahim, Ramji, Sameem, Aarif, Mohammed, Aneez, Nazeer, Abdul Rahman, Asraf and Noor Islam were recorded. She sent the victims to the medical examination to Tiruppur Government Hospital through a women Police viz., Manimegalai. The accused was absconding and surrendered thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. On requisition, he was given Police custody and his confession statement were recorded in the presence of witnesses. Upon the order of the Court, the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, recorded the statement of victims, under Section 164 of C.P.C., / Ex.P15 series. The accused was medically examined on

01.08.2017 at the Tiruppur Government Hospital as per the order of the Court. She obtained the medical records from Dr.Prakash and Dr.Pavithra and enquired them. The Police Constables were enquired by her and final report was filed altering the case to Section 5(f), (l), (m) r/w. 6 (2 counts) of POCSO Act, 2012 [Charge alteration report (Ex.P16)]. Final Report was laid under the provisions as mentioned supra. P.W.1 has given statement that her brother has seen the misdemeanor of the accused and conveyed the same to his mother.

¶24Dr.Prakash (P.W.10), Medical Officer of Tiruppur Government Medical Hospital, would state that the accused Kadhar Moideen, 52 years was sent for medical Examination as per the order of the Court. Accident Register and Medical Records pertaining to the accused are Ex.P5 and Ex.P6.

¶25It is the evidence of Dr.Pavithra (P.W.12) that on 07.07.2017, she examined two minor girls ('X' and 'Y') in connection with Crime No.17/2017 of Tiruppur North All Women Police Station along with Police Constables Manimegalai and Kamatchi. When she enquired the victims, they told that their Tuition Master sexually abused them from 01.05.2017 to 13.05.2017.

¶26On perusal of the medical records, it appears that both the victims were given counseling after obtaining opinion from the Pediatrician. On the same day at 9.30 p.m., both the victims were medically examined by Dr.Pavithra / P.W.12.

¶27Suggestions were put forth to P.W.4 and P.W.5 by the accused side to the effect that since the brother of the victims has committed small mistakes, he was asked not to attend Arabic Class and therefore, at the instance of the victim's brother, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the accused.

¶28Even for a moment, if the said allegations are presumed to be true, no mother would lodge a complaint that her minor daughters were sexually harassed. The birth extracts of the victims are marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. On the date of complaint i.e., 07.07.2017 the victims are aged about 11 years and 10 years. At the instance of P.W.4, the mother of the victimsm the case was registered on 07.07.2017. P.W.4 has spoken about the complaints made to various Mosques. As there was no positive response from the Mosque head man, she lodged the complaint before Tiruppur North All Women Police Station.

¶29From the evidence of victims, it is pellucid that they were attending the Arabic class which was taken by the accused and on a particular day, they did not go for Arabic class. This was taken note of by the father of the minor children and on his enquiry, his daughter did not disclose anything. When the paternal grandmother enquired one of the victims, she appeared to have disclosed the commissions of the accused, who in turn informed the same to her son P.W.5 who is the father of the victims.

¶30It is relevant to note that in Ex.P15-series recorded under 164 Cr.P.C., in her own words, P.W.1 (one of the minor victim girl) has stated that ehd; v';f mk;kh fpl;l brhd;dh mog;gh';fd;D brhy;yy " " which would reflect the fact that minors normally will have hesitation to disclose about the sexual assault to their parents. The version of the victims were well corroborated by the evidence of their parents P.W.4 and P.W.5. Of course, there are some contradictions, but the same cannot be taken as a reason for discrediting the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Even at the time of medical examination, the victims have narrated about the occurrence to Dr.Pavithra P.W.12 that they were sexually harassed by their Arabic Teacher.

¶31Since it is a Teacher student relationship, the victims being students of the accused, they have to obey the commands of the teacher and that without knowing the consequences of the same, they obeyed his commands since the victims are minors aged 11 and 10 years. The accused had sexually harassed both the victims as spoken by them. P.W.1 has in her evidence clearly stated that he hugged her though she refused and on another day, he took both the victims to bathroom, hugged them and kissed them and inserted his fingers in the private parts of the victims and he pressed their breast. P.W.2 also corroborated the same. Taking advantage of the age of the victims, the accused had committed the above offences many times and continuously harassed the victims sexually as mentioned supra. Crl.A.No.694oofo2018

¶32Law is well settled when the punishment is higher, the evidence should be stronger. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been corroborated by their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Therefore, relying upon the evidence of the victims, their parents, supporting witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, it is clear that when the victims were attending Arabic Class, the accused by taking them to open terrace, sexually assaulted them. Hence, the charges are proved under Sections 5(f), (l), (m) of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶33Though the charges were framed under Sections 5(f), (l), (m) of POCSO Act, 2012 as there is no penetrative sexual assault, the trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 9 (f), (l) and (m) of POCSO Act. Section 9 speaks about aggravated sexual assault. Section 9 (f), (l) and (m) of POCSO Act, are extracted hereunder:

¶9Agg r a V a t e d sexu a l ass a u l t f . whoeV e r be i n g on the manag em e n t or sta f f of an educ a t i o n a l ins t i t u t i o n or re l i g i o u s in s t i t u t i o n , commi t s sexu a l ass a u l t on a ch i l d in tha t in s t i t u t i o n ; (l ) whoe V e r commi t s sex u a l ass a u l t on the ch i l d more than onc e or rep e a t e d l y ;

(m) whoe V e r commi t s sexu a l ass a u l t on a ch i l d be l ow twe l V e yea r s ;

¶34The accused was teaching Arabic to the Muslim children in the Mosque. He is supposed to have acted as a guardian of the children. But, he has sexually misbehaved with the minors. His act is highly condemnable.

¶35Based on the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution has clearly established the fact that the accused had sexually assaulted the victims who are minors in a religious place i.e., Mosque. In the sexual offence, the foremost mantra is if the testimony of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court, solely based on the evidence of the victim, the Court can convict the accused for the offence charged. There is no circumstances put forth disregarding testimony of the victims and the evidence of parents. The evidence of victims clearly depicts the fact that he was in the culpable state of mind to sexually assault the victims and he committed the same for more than once. Therefore the presumption arises against the accused as per Section 29 of the POCSO Act. It is a rebutable presumption. The suggestions were put forth to P.W.4 and P.W.5 to the effect that as their son was sent out from the Arabic Tuition class by the accused, the mother of the victim P.W.4 lodged the complaint against the accused. This aspect is discussed supra and held that this suggestion put forth by the accused is absolutely unacceptable.

¶36The prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial Court has rightly found the accused guilty under Sections 9 (f), (l), (m) r/w. Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 which is a well reasoned Judgment and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶37In fine, i. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ii. The conviction and sentence dated 17.10.2018 in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017, passed by the Magalir Neethimandrum (Fast track Court) Tiruppur are confirmed. iii. The trial Court shall secure the accused by issuing warrant in order to serve the sentence imposed by it, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. 13 . 0 2 . 2 0 2 4 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order vum R.KA L A I M A T H I , J . vum To

¶1The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandrum (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur.

¶2The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station North, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

¶4The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai. 13 . 0 2 . 2 0 2 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Da t e d : 13 . 0 2 . 2 0 2 4 CORAM THE HONOURA B L E MRS . J U S T I C E R.KA L A I M A T H I Kadhar Moidheen ... Appellant / Sole Accused Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station North, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. ... Respondent / Complainant Pra y e r : The Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the Conviction and Sentence imposed in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2017, dated 17.10.2018 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandrum (Fast track Court) Tiruppur. For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilvel For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side)