High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.178 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.178 of 2023Thimmappan... Appellant Vs.1. The State by the Inspector of Police,Mahendiramangalam Police Staion,Dharmapuri District.(Crime No.806/202)2. Mutulakshmi(R2 impleaded as per order dated28.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.2952/2023in Crl.A.No.178/2023) ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and set aside the judgment dated 29.08.2022. For Appellant: Mr.E.KannadasanFor RespondentsFor R1: Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2: No appearancePage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 29.08.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri, in Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offences 450 & 506(i) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2020, at about 9 am., with an intention to commit penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, the appellant trespassed into her house and took her to the Kitchen. Thereafter, he had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed it to anybody. The same was continued on several occasions. The parents of the victim girl were out of station for their occupation and utilizing the said circumstances, the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 20233.On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.806 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 449, 506(1) of IPC, Sections 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri. 4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.26 and also marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. One material objection was also marked as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 450 & 506(i) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him as follows :-S.No.ConvictionSentence1Section 450 of IPCto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023S.No.ConvictionSentence2Section 506(1) of IPCto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.3Section 5(l) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Actto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.4Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Actto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8 informed the parents of the victim girl and lodged complaint. There was a delay in lodgment of complaint. The occurrence took place on 03.11.2020. Whereas the complaint was lodged only on 06.11.2020. There was absolutely no explanation for the belated complaint. The evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated with the doctor who examined the victim girl. The doctor was examined as P.W.18 and she deposed that there was no injury on the private part, breast and other part of her body. However, her hymen was not intact and it was happened due to some Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023other reasons. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act. 5.1.Insofar as the SC/ST Act is concerned, even as per the prosecution, the appellant never abused the victim by using her caste name. Therefore, the offence under Section SC/ST Act is not at all attracted against the appellant. Even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true, the appellant had made an attempt as such the offence punishable under Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act and other offences are not at all attracted as against the appellant. 6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State raised serious objection and contended that the evidences recorded from the prosecution witnesses would prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, interference of this Court is not necessary in the findings arrived at by the trial Court.Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 20237.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8.On perusal of the records, it is revealed that on 03.11.2020 at about 9.00 p.m., while the victim girl was sleeping along with her younger sisters and brothers, the appellant trespassed into her house and after providing briyani to them, the appellant had taken the victim girl to Kitchen. Thereafter, he had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. It was seen by the prosecution witness P.W. 4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8, who are neighbors. Though they did not support the case of the prosecution, the victim evidence is as follows :-@vd; mk;kh mg;gh vd;dplk; VjhtJ ngr ntz;Lk; vd;why; jpk;kg;gd; nghd; K:yk; jhd; ngRthh;fs;/ jpk;kg;gd; nghid vLj;Jbfhz;Lte;J bfhLg;ghh;/ ehd; xU tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ taRf;F te;njd;/ jpk;kg;gd; iel; 09/30 kzpf;F te;J vd; mk;kh nghd; ngRfpwhh;fs; vd;W bfhz;Lte;J bfhLg;ghh;/ mg;nghJ jpk;kg;gd; nghijapy; ,Ug;ghh;/ vdf;F rpf;fd; iu!; th';fpbfhz;L te;J bfhLg;ghh;/ mij ehd; vd; jk;gp. j';iffs; rhg;gpLnthk;/ mjd;gpwF eh';fs; vy;nyhUk; J}';fptpLnthk;/ jpk;kg;gd; vg;go tUthh; vd;W Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; te;J thapy; Jzpia fl;o vd;id fpr;rDf;F Tl;ongha;tpLthh;/ fpr;rDf;F Tl;o ngha;tpLthh;/ fpr;rDf;F Tl;ongha; ehd; nghl;oUf;Fk; iel;oia J}f;fptpl;L vd; $l;oia mt[j;JtpLthh;/ jpk;kg;gd; mtuJ Frpia vLj;J ehd; bu!;l;U:k; nghu ,lj;jpy tr;R tr;R vLg;ghh;/ ,Jnghy;; xU thuk; bra;jhh;/ ,e;j jftiy vd; mk;kh. mg;ghtplk; brhd;dhy; fj;jpia itj;J fGj;ij mWj;JtpLntd; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ 03/11/2020k; njjp iel; 09/30 kzpf;F gf;fj;JtPl;Lfhu';f jpk;kg;gd; jpdKk; tUtij fjt[ tHpahf te;J ghh;j;jhh;fs;/@ Thus it is clear that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. 9.Further the doctor who treated the victim girl was examined as P.W.18. She deposed as follows :-@fle;j 03/11/2020k; njjp ,ut[ 09/30 kzpf;F jd;Dila tPl;oy; jd; rnfhjphpfSld; cw';fpbfhz;oUe;j nghJ mtuJ gf;fj;J tPl;Lfhuuhd 38 taJila jpk;kg;gd; vd;gth; jd;Dila tPl;ow;F te;J jd;id rikay; miwf;F J}f;fpbrd;W rpWkpapd; thapy; Jzpia itj;J milj;J khh;g[ kw;Wk; cly; KGtJk; bjhl;L Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023Kj;jkpl;ljhft[k;. rpWkpapd; cs;shilia fHw;wp mtuJ Mz;Fwpia rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; itj;jjhft[k;. gpd;dh; m';fpUe;J Xotpl;ljhf Twpdhh;/ nkw;go rpWkpia ghpnrhjid bra;jjpy; cly;. ,U bjhilfs;. khh;g[ kw;Wk; gpwg;g[Wg;gpd; btspgFjpapy; foj;j fhaKk;. ef fPunyh. rpuha;g;g[ fhaKk; fhzg;gltpy;iy/ mtuJ gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; ghpnrhjid bra;jjpy; fd;dpjpiu nrjkile;jpUe;jJ/ gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; xU tpuy; EiHaToa mstpw;F ,Ue;jJ/ nkw;go rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;g[ jlty; nrfhpj;J jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpw;F mDg;gpitj;njd;/ jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpy; ,Ue;J fpilj;j Ma;twpf;ifapd; go nkw;go rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; tpe;jQqf;fs; vJt[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;W mwpf;if bgwg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go rpWkpapd; fd;dpjpiu nrjkile;jpUe;jJ/ rpWkpapd; cly; KGtJk; vt;tpj foj;j fhankh. effPunyh. rpuha;g;g[ fhankh fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; tpe;jQqf;fs; vJt[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. kUj;Jt ghpnrhjid mwpf;if tH';fpndd;/ tpgj;J gjpntL efy; m/j/rh/M/13/ tpLtpg;g[ rhd;W m/j/rh/M/14/ jla mwptpay; Ma;tf mwpf;if m/j/rh/M/15/ kUj;Jt ghpnrhjid mwpf;if m/j/rh/M/16/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;@Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023Thus it is clear that the evidence of P.W.18 is clearly corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. Though the doctor did not find any injury on her private part as well as on her body, her hymen was not intact. Hence, the prosecution proved the charges beyond any doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.10.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsTo1. The Sessions Judge,Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri.2. The Inspector of Police,Mahendiramangalam Police Staion,Dharmapuri District.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai. Crl.A.No.178 of 202313.06.2025Page 10 of 10

Crl.A.No.178 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.178 of 2023Thimmappan... Appellant Vs.1. The State by the Inspector of Police,Mahendiramangalam Police Staion,Dharmapuri District.(Crime No.806/202)2. Mutulakshmi(R2 impleaded as per order dated28.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.2952/2023in Crl.A.No.178/2023) ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and set aside the judgment dated 29.08.2022. For Appellant: Mr.E.KannadasanFor RespondentsFor R1: Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorFor R2: No appearancePage 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 29.08.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri, in Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offences 450 & 506(i) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”). 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2020, at about 9 am., with an intention to commit penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, the appellant trespassed into her house and took her to the Kitchen. Thereafter, he had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed it to anybody. The same was continued on several occasions. The parents of the victim girl were out of station for their occupation and utilizing the said circumstances, the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 20233.On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.806 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 449, 506(1) of IPC, Sections 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.67 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri. 4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.26 and also marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. One material objection was also marked as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 450 & 506(i) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him as follows :-S.No.ConvictionSentence1Section 450 of IPCto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023S.No.ConvictionSentence2Section 506(1) of IPCto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.3Section 5(l) r/w.6(1) of POCSO Actto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.4Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Actto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8 informed the parents of the victim girl and lodged complaint. There was a delay in lodgment of complaint. The occurrence took place on 03.11.2020. Whereas the complaint was lodged only on 06.11.2020. There was absolutely no explanation for the belated complaint. The evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated with the doctor who examined the victim girl. The doctor was examined as P.W.18 and she deposed that there was no injury on the private part, breast and other part of her body. However, her hymen was not intact and it was happened due to some Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023other reasons. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act. 5.1.Insofar as the SC/ST Act is concerned, even as per the prosecution, the appellant never abused the victim by using her caste name. Therefore, the offence under Section SC/ST Act is not at all attracted against the appellant. Even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true, the appellant had made an attempt as such the offence punishable under Section 5(l) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act and other offences are not at all attracted as against the appellant. 6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State raised serious objection and contended that the evidences recorded from the prosecution witnesses would prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, interference of this Court is not necessary in the findings arrived at by the trial Court.Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 20237.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8.On perusal of the records, it is revealed that on 03.11.2020 at about 9.00 p.m., while the victim girl was sleeping along with her younger sisters and brothers, the appellant trespassed into her house and after providing briyani to them, the appellant had taken the victim girl to Kitchen. Thereafter, he had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. It was seen by the prosecution witness P.W. 4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8, who are neighbors. Though they did not support the case of the prosecution, the victim evidence is as follows :-@vd; mk;kh mg;gh vd;dplk; VjhtJ ngr ntz;Lk; vd;why; jpk;kg;gd; nghd; K:yk; jhd; ngRthh;fs;/ jpk;kg;gd; nghid vLj;Jbfhz;Lte;J bfhLg;ghh;/ ehd; xU tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ taRf;F te;njd;/ jpk;kg;gd; iel; 09/30 kzpf;F te;J vd; mk;kh nghd; ngRfpwhh;fs; vd;W bfhz;Lte;J bfhLg;ghh;/ mg;nghJ jpk;kg;gd; nghijapy; ,Ug;ghh;/ vdf;F rpf;fd; iu!; th';fpbfhz;L te;J bfhLg;ghh;/ mij ehd; vd; jk;gp. j';iffs; rhg;gpLnthk;/ mjd;gpwF eh';fs; vy;nyhUk; J}';fptpLnthk;/ jpk;kg;gd; vg;go tUthh; vd;W Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; te;J thapy; Jzpia fl;o vd;id fpr;rDf;F Tl;ongha;tpLthh;/ fpr;rDf;F Tl;o ngha;tpLthh;/ fpr;rDf;F Tl;ongha; ehd; nghl;oUf;Fk; iel;oia J}f;fptpl;L vd; $l;oia mt[j;JtpLthh;/ jpk;kg;gd; mtuJ Frpia vLj;J ehd; bu!;l;U:k; nghu ,lj;jpy tr;R tr;R vLg;ghh;/ ,Jnghy;; xU thuk; bra;jhh;/ ,e;j jftiy vd; mk;kh. mg;ghtplk; brhd;dhy; fj;jpia itj;J fGj;ij mWj;JtpLntd; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ 03/11/2020k; njjp iel; 09/30 kzpf;F gf;fj;JtPl;Lfhu';f jpk;kg;gd; jpdKk; tUtij fjt[ tHpahf te;J ghh;j;jhh;fs;/@ Thus it is clear that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. 9.Further the doctor who treated the victim girl was examined as P.W.18. She deposed as follows :-@fle;j 03/11/2020k; njjp ,ut[ 09/30 kzpf;F jd;Dila tPl;oy; jd; rnfhjphpfSld; cw';fpbfhz;oUe;j nghJ mtuJ gf;fj;J tPl;Lfhuuhd 38 taJila jpk;kg;gd; vd;gth; jd;Dila tPl;ow;F te;J jd;id rikay; miwf;F J}f;fpbrd;W rpWkpapd; thapy; Jzpia itj;J milj;J khh;g[ kw;Wk; cly; KGtJk; bjhl;L Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023Kj;jkpl;ljhft[k;. rpWkpapd; cs;shilia fHw;wp mtuJ Mz;Fwpia rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; itj;jjhft[k;. gpd;dh; m';fpUe;J Xotpl;ljhf Twpdhh;/ nkw;go rpWkpia ghpnrhjid bra;jjpy; cly;. ,U bjhilfs;. khh;g[ kw;Wk; gpwg;g[Wg;gpd; btspgFjpapy; foj;j fhaKk;. ef fPunyh. rpuha;g;g[ fhaKk; fhzg;gltpy;iy/ mtuJ gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; ghpnrhjid bra;jjpy; fd;dpjpiu nrjkile;jpUe;jJ/ gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; xU tpuy; EiHaToa mstpw;F ,Ue;jJ/ nkw;go rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;g[ jlty; nrfhpj;J jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpw;F mDg;gpitj;njd;/ jla mwptpay; Ma;tfj;jpy; ,Ue;J fpilj;j Ma;twpf;ifapd; go nkw;go rpWkpapd; gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; tpe;jQqf;fs; vJt[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;W mwpf;if bgwg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go rpWkpapd; fd;dpjpiu nrjkile;jpUe;jJ/ rpWkpapd; cly; KGtJk; vt;tpj foj;j fhankh. effPunyh. rpuha;g;g[ fhankh fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. gpwg;g[Wg;gpy; tpe;jQqf;fs; vJt[k; fhzg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. kUj;Jt ghpnrhjid mwpf;if tH';fpndd;/ tpgj;J gjpntL efy; m/j/rh/M/13/ tpLtpg;g[ rhd;W m/j/rh/M/14/ jla mwptpay; Ma;tf mwpf;if m/j/rh/M/15/ kUj;Jt ghpnrhjid mwpf;if m/j/rh/M/16/ nghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;@Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023Thus it is clear that the evidence of P.W.18 is clearly corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. Though the doctor did not find any injury on her private part as well as on her body, her hymen was not intact. Hence, the prosecution proved the charges beyond any doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.10.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 13.06.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsPage 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.178 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsTo1. The Sessions Judge,Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Dharmapuri.2. The Inspector of Police,Mahendiramangalam Police Staion,Dharmapuri District.3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court,Chennai. Crl.A.No.178 of 202313.06.2025Page 10 of 10