Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.749 of 2016AccusedUnder SectionSentence6 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, 2012Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment.10 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Child Marriage Act One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the first appellant, who was married to PW1, had developed an illicit relationship with PW2, who was then a minor, and also solemnized marriage with her with the help of his father/A2, and thus, committed the aforesaid offence. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, held that the prosecution had established the offences against the accused and that sentenced them as stated above.5. When the appeal was pending for consideration, the victim/PW2, who is said to have married the first appellant when she was a minor, had filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.9387 of 2024 along with an Affidavit in support of the petition. The scanned copy of the Affidavit is reproduced for ease of reference.Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 20166. The victim/PW2 is present in person and identified by the learned counsel for the appellants and also by Mrs.P.Kanniyammal, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ariyalur - AWPS. The victim had confirmed the contents of the Affidavit and stated that since the first appellant is now living with her and taking care of her, the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be set aside. 7. The case was initially registered on the complaint given by the wife of the first appellant, who was examined as PW1. The respondent had also produced PW1, who is working as a Teacher, before this Court. It appears that the first appellant and PW1 had also entered into compromise by which, the first appellant agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs into the account of their daughter and accordingly, had handed over the Demand Draft for Rs.1.50 lakhs. PW1 had also stated that she is willing for the disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise in view of the changed circumstances.8. The scanned copy of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between PW1 and the appellants is also reproduced here for ease of reference.Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 20169. PW1, who is present in person before this Court and identified by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ariyalur - AWPS, also confirms the compromise entered into between her and the first appellant.10. This Court finds that the victim, during the trial, had not supported the prosecution case. She is now living with the appellant with two children and has prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction.11. The first appellant also stated that after he obtains divorce from PW1 by mutual consent, his marriage with PW2 would be legally registered. The said undertaking is recorded.12. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in deciding the case on merits.13. In identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, held as follows:Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016“6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School, as can be seen from document at Annexure ‘P-1’, the date of birth of the third respondent is shown as 20 July, 1998. Ossification test was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third respondent may be between 17½ years to 19 years. There are documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and their children.”14. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings pending trial. However, the same can be extended even where the appeal is pending against conviction. In fact, in K.Dhandapani v. The State by the Inspector of Police [Crl.A.No.796 of 2022 dated 09.05.2022], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence solely on the ground that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.”15. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2016 dated 09.09.2016 and it is accordingly, set aside.16. The Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2016 stands disposed of.18.07.2025hamIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoPage 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016To1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur District.2.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Ariyalur District.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras.Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.749 of 2016SUNDER MOHAN, J. hamCrl.A.No.749 of 201618.07.2025Page 14 of 14