High Court · 2025

CRL A No. 165 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICRL A No. 165 of 20231. MURUGANANDAMS/o.Jayashankar, No.55-B, Old Neyveli Melpapanapattu, Virudachalam Union, Cuddalore District.Appellant(s)Vs1. The State Rep By Its,The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District. Cr.No.186 of 2020.Respondent(s)CRL A No. 165 of 2023PRAYERTo call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and sentence dated 11.01.2023 by the Learned Special Court for POCSO CASES, CUDDALORE IN SPL.S.C.No.37 of 2020 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.CRL A No. 165 of 2023For Appellant(s):M/s. P.Muthamizhselvakumarfor G.S. Dhanalakshmi andMr. N.Raja, Legal Aid counsel.S. Ramesh KumarP.Vignesh KumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.V. Meganathan,Government Advocate (Crl. Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023ORDERThis Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and sentence dated 11.01.2023 by the Learned Special Court for POCSO CASES, CUDDALORE IN SPL.S.C.No.37 of 2020 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.2. The brief facts of the case:The defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that on 02.06. 2020, the victim slept at her home. The following morning, she discovered the victim was missing. She informed one Mr. Palanivel to search for her. Subsequently, the victim called Palanivel and stated she was standing at the Mandharakuppam bus stand. When they reached the bus stand, they found the victim there. The victim stated that the appellant/accused had asked her to accompany him for the purpose of solemnizing their marriage. Believing his words, she left her home at midnight. He took her to an NLC stream area where, under the promise of marriage, he engaged in sexual cohabitation with her. Afterwards, he took her to the Mandharakuppam bus stand and told her to wait while he allegedly made marriage arrangements. When he failed to return after several hours, the victim called her uncle to inform him of the situation. Based on the complainant lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered FIR in crime No. 186 of 2020 for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023the offence under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the Trial Court and same was taken on file in S.C No. 37 of 2020. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial court convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 366 IPC r/w 3 and 4 of POCSO and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds:i. The judgement of the Trial Court based on surmises and conjectures and not on the evidence on record leading to give perverse fiindings to record conviction.ii. The learned Trial judge failed to note that PW.1 used talk to appellant over the phone and she had seen appellant on the fateful night for the first time. Further, she admits never met appellant earlier, no prudent men could believe on the first meeting that in odd hour of mid night, no one would go behind person and indulge in such an act of intercourse.iii. The learned Trial Judge failed to read the cross examination in proper sense(page no. 42 last 3 lines of judgment),when the specifice question posed to so called victim, '' do you know person talked to you over phone is the same person who picked up on mid night''. Answer from victim, person talked over phone said that he will wait out side at her house at mid night with cycle, when https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023she seen outside her house she found person standing with cycle and went with him. This answer would speak volume about her character and moral she possess.iv. The learned Trial judge failed to take judicial notice that for the first time so called victim meeting a person in mid night that too after seeing her parents are sleeping and went to nearby place and purposefully witched off her phone went behind the unknown person had intercourse shows here moral character.V. The learned trial judge failed to appreciate medical evidence that there is no injury on the body of so called victim. She might be between age of 18 to 20.4. By submitting the above grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that there was forced compulsion made by the petitioner against the victim girl without which he was convicted under Section 366 IPC as such is illegal and liable to be set aside. Further, he pointed out that there is no ingredient to attract offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Further, he would submits that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In spite of that the appellant was convicted. Hence, the prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.5. The learned Government Advocate submits that under the guise of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023marriage the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim to that effect medical report was marked on the side of prosecution which shows that victim was subjected to the penetrative sexual assault and the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record convicted the petitioner6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).7. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC and Section 3(4) of the POCSO Act Section 366 IPC reads as follows:Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;And whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.7. The prosecution must prove that the appellant induced the victim or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the victim may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023accused may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judement in the case of Gabbu V. State of M.P, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 740:7.Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366, IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant-woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal Section. So far as a charge under Section 366, IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366, IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366, IPC. We have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix nowhere alleged that she was abducted with the intention to commit an offence, that she was compelled to marry the accused or any other person or that the accused knew that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced her to illicit intercourse. The story unfolded from the evidence led by the prosecution appears to be that the accused-appellant along with the other accused in the evening went to the house of the prosecutrix and the other accused applied some medicine on her hand so that she might get pregnant after 10 years of marriage. The accused might have persuaded her to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023accompany them so that they could administer the medicine to her and she being an illiterate lady believing in the superstitions agreed to accompany them. After the accused- appellant left both of them at village Gunabad, the other accused had other intentions and committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. That does not ipso facto prove the fact that from the very beginning the accused-appellant had any intention of inducing the prosecutrix to forcibly marry him or the other accused or she was induced or seduced to illicit intercourse with the accused- appellant or with the other person whose company he left at Gunabad. There is no allegation that from the house of prosecutrix upto Gunabad the accused-appellant made any advances against the prosecutrix so as to show his intention of committing forcible intercourse with her. 9. By relying the above judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants argues that out of love affair the appellant had eloped with victim girl and sexual intercourse with her. In the present case, the appellant had not forced or seduced the victim girl to illicit intercourse to that effect he relied the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even as per the version of victim girl, the appellant has not forced the victim girl therefore, the offence under is not made out for convicting the appellant under Section 366 IPC. Even P.W.8 stated that victim is aged between 18 to 20, hence, Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act will not make out.10. The statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reads as follows:... 02/06/2020 KUfhde;jk; vd;gth; nghd; gz;zp vd;id ghh;f;fDk;D tu brhd;dhh;/ 1 ngUk; 2 khjkhf yt; gz;nzhk;/ vd;id ghh;gjw;fhf md;iwf;F te;jhh;/ Xilf;F mUnf cs;s https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023kz; nkl;oy; ghh;j;njhk;/ eh';fs; ,UtUk; nrh;e;J ,Ue;njhk;/ fy;ahzk; gz;zpf;fyhk; vd;W brhy;yp ke;jhuf;Fg;gj;jpw;F Tl;ol;L nghdhh;/ buhk;g neuk; Mfpa[k; mth; tutpy;iy/ ehd; vd; khkhtpw;F nghd; gz;nzd;/.... 11. As per the statement of victim girl, they loved each other and had sexual intercourse with him. Thereafter, they planned for solemnizing marriage and appellant told her to wait at Mandharakuppam bus stand. After a long time had passed and he did not return, so she called her uncle over phone. Therefore, the facts reveal that before the alleged complaint the petitioner and the victim girl had love each other and they were planning for marriage. Thereafter, they got eloped. In order to attract offence under Section 366 IPC the main ingredient is must be compulsion or inducement on the side of the appellant, however, in the present case, the appellants has not compelled or induced the victim to sexual intercourse. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant induced the victim girl and abduction taken place forcefully by the appellant with deceitful means. Further, the appellant is aged about 19 years and the victim is aged about 17 years,10 months, 23 days at the time of the occurrence, As already dealt with by this court in similar issues in Sabariv Vs. Inspector of Police, 2019 (3 MLJ CRL 110) both were teenagers, they were not understand the implications or severity of POCSO Act. Out of love affair the appellant had sexual intercourse with victim, it is not sufficient to constitute the severity of the offence under Section POCSO Act. As discussed above, there is no ingredient to attract offence under Section 366 IPC and the prosecution has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgement and conviction passed by the Special Court for POCSO CASES, Cuddalore is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The fine amount(s), if any, paid by the accused, is/are directed to be refunded. The bail bond(s), if any, executed by the accused, shall stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 10-10-2025pblT.V.THAMILSELVI J. pblTo1. The Special Court for Pocso Cases, Cuddalore.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL A No. 165 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 165 of 2023 10-10-2025