Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.566 of 20192. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as their respective ranks before the Trial Court.4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had an illicit affair with the deceased, aged about 16 years and who belonged to scheduled caste community. According to the prosecution, the accused lured both the mother, as well as the deceased, by offering to buy the girl laptop, took both of them to Jayapriya Guest House at Cuddalore on 18.06.2014 and committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased. After few days on 03.07.2014, he again took the deceased to J Lodge and stayed there till 08.07.2014, during which period, he repeatedly subjected the deceased to penetrative sexual assault. He then took the assistance of one Pushparaj to drop them at Parangipettai. After the said Pushparaj had dropped them, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and attacked her with stick and strangulated her to death. He then tied her legs with her dress and dumped the body in a nearby channel. The body was discovered by the villagers Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019on 10.07.2014 and thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer had given a written complaint, which was registered under Section 174(1) of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.120 of 2014 by Killai Police. After investigation, a final report was filed against the accused, charging him of having committed the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 r/w. 302 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (POA) and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 5. In order to prove their case, the prosecution had examined 24 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked 37 documents namely Exs.P1 to P37, apart from 54 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.54. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked.6.1. In order to establish their case before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined the father (P.W.6) and mother (P.W.7) of the deceased before the Trial Court. According to the father (P.W.6), the deceased was born on 08.01.1998, as per her original birth certificate (Ex.P37). He had also deposed that the accused had taken his daughter Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019and wife (P.W.7) to some place about a month before her death and a few days later, when his daughter went missing, he had contacted the accused on his cellphone, when he had informed him that he had married his daughter. He also spoke about his daughter confirming the marriage. During the course of trial, when the CCTV footage (Ex.P15) was played to him, he had identified both the accused and his daughter at the lodge. 6.2. P.W.7 – mother, corroborates the testimony of her husband (P.W.6) and spoke about the marriage of her daughter with the accused about which she was informed by the accused.6.3. K.Pushparaj (P.W.9) is an employment agent of the brother of the accused, who had seen both the accused and the deceased on 08.07.2014 at about 06.00 to 07.00 P.M. According to P.W.9, the accused had called him to pick him up from Thaikkal. He also spoke about picking up the accused and the deceased girl in his motorcycle and dropping them at Parangipettai and enroute, when the accused bought liquor.6.4. V.Gowtham (P.W.11) is the Manager of Jayapriya Guest House, who confirmed that the accused and the deceased had booked a room in the lodge on 18.06.2014 at 06.00 P.M. in Room No.3. The ledger entry No.2917 in this regard, was marked as Ex.P8. He further testified that the Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019accused had also booked Room No.204 on 15.07.2014 at 07.15 P.M, under the ledger entry No.2955 and stayed there with a transgender.6.5. Mr.P.Krishnakumar (P.W.15) is the Manager of J Lodge at Lawrence Road, Cuddalore. As per his statement, the accused along with one girl had booked a room on 03.07.2014 and vacated the Room No.208 on 07.07.2014. The ledger entry in page No.77, in this regard, was marked as Ex.P12. Thereafter, on 08.07.2014, the accused had again booked the same Room No.208 under ledger entry No.79, which was marked as Ex.P13. According to him, both the accused and the deceased girl had vacated the room the next day on 08.07.2014. The Investigating Officer had also recovered the CCTV footage from the lodge. When the CCTV footage was played to the accused, he had admitted that the image in the footage was his but he did not know who the girl was.6.6. S.Rajiv Gandhi (P.W.3) is a villager, who saw the body of the deceased in the channel with the legs tied. He then went and informed his brother S.Veerappan (P.W.4), who also came and saw the body. 6.7. P.W.5 is another villager who had turned hostile. 6.8. On receiving information about the discovery of the body, the Village Assistant (P.W.2) had informed the Village Administrative Officer Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019(P.W.1), who went to the scene. Thereafter, he had given a written complaint (Ex.P1) to the police. The Investigating Officer, had prepared a seizure mahazar and recovered 21 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.21 from the place in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.6.9. N.Sethumanikam (P.W.8) is the Village Administrative Officer and the witness to the arrest of the accused, in whose presence, the accused gave his voluntary confession. According to him, the accused was arrested on 16.07.2014 at 12.45 P.M. at Ponnathota Village. The admitted portion of the confession statement was marked as Ex.P5 and the personal belongings of the accused (M.O.29 to M.O.39) were seized under Ex.P6 in his presence. 6.10. Dr.S.Senthil (P.W.12) had conducted the potency test of the accused and certified through Ex.P10 that the accused was not impotent.6.11. Dr.Lakshmi (P.W.16) is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. According to her, when the post-mortem was conducted at 05.15 P.M. on 11.07.2014, the body was in highly decomposed state with lots of maggots. In the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P16), she had recorded several injuries during the post-mortem, including the fracture on 'right greater horn' (hyoid bone). Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019According to her opinion, the deceased could have died before 5 to 9 days from the date of post-mortem. In her final opinion, she had stated that the deceased would appeared to have probably died due to drowning and throttling causing severe asphyxia and shock with injury to vital organs about 5 to 9 days prior to autopsy. 6.12. Mrs.Anbuselvi (P.W.17), who is the Tahsildar, had confirmed through the community certificate (Ex.P17) of the accused that he belongs to vanniyar community.6.13. Dr.Subashini (P.W.18), is the doctor who gave the viscera report (Ex.P24), certifying that no alcohol or other poison was detected in any of the body parts. 6.14. Dr.Gitanjali (P.W.19) is the bone analyst, who had examined the hyoid bone and through her report (Ex.P19), she had certified that the hyoid was not intact and the right greater horn was fractured (inward compression tight).6.15. Mr.R.Manikam (P.W.20) is the forensic expert, through whom the biological report (Ex.P22), serology report (Ex.P23) and viscera report (Ex.P24) were marked. As per his report, blood was detected on 4 items of clothes of the deceased and the result was disintegrated in all the four Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019items.6.16. Mr.S.Sivagnanam (P.W.21) is the Sub Inspector of Police who had received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the F.I.R in Crime No.120 of 2014 under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. 6.17. Mr.N.Ramachandiran (P.W.22) is the Tahsildar who had issued the community certificate (Ex.P26) of the deceased, certifying her as belonging to scheduled caste community. 6.18. Mrs.Meena (P.W.23) is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the initial investigation. On receiving the information about the incident, she had gone to the place where the body was found at 06.00 A.M. on 11.07.2014 and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P27) and rough sketch (Ex.P28). She then recovered the traces and other articles of the deceased from the scene under seizure mahazar (Ex.P29) and marked them as M.O.40 to M.O.49. Thereafter, an inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased and inquest report (Ex.P30) was prepared. From about 50 meters from the scene, 21 suspicious items were recovered under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P2). All these were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Form 95. She then prepared an alteration report (Ex.P31), altering the offence from Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. to Section 302 Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019IPC. After examining several persons, she had arrested the accused at 12.00 Noon of 16.07.2014 in southern side of Ponnathota bridge. His voluntary confession was then recorded in front of the witnesses. Thereafter, she had made arrangements for remand of the accused. Based on his confession, the offences were once again altered from Sections 302 IPC, 376(A) IPC and 302 IPC r/w. Section 4 of POCSO Act. The alteration report was marked as Ex.P32. When it was known that the accused belong to vanniyar community and the deceased belonged to scheduled community, she once again prepared an alteration report (Ex.P33), by including the offence under Sections 3 to 5 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.6.19. The investigation was then handed over to Mr.R.Rajaram, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.24). On taking up the investigation, he had gone to Jayapriya Guest House and seized the arrival and departure book containing Serial Nos.2901 to 3000. The ledger was marked as M.O.50, in which page No.2917 relating to Room No.303, was marked as Ex.P8. Likewise, page No.2955 relating to Room No.204 was marked as Ex.P9. He then proceeded to J Lodge and under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P34), he had seized the CCTV footage through a CD, which was Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019marked as Ex.P15.6.20. Serial No.67 in M.O.51 – ledger, records that the accused was staying at Room No.208, which entry was marked as Ex.P12. Likewise, Serial No.79 evidencing the accused staying on 07.07.2014 at Room No.208 was marked as Ex.P13. In order to ascertain the DNA of the deceased, he had collected the blood samples of the deceased, as well as P.W.6 (father) and P.W.7 (mother). The DNA report was marked as Ex.P35 series. The Chudhidar, dupatta and the photographs of the body were all marked as M.O.52, M.O.53 and M.O.54 series. On completion of the investigation, he had filed a final report on 09.12.2014. The final alteration report was marked as Ex.P.36.7. On the strength of these oral and documentary evidences before it, the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of the accused and sentenced him to the aforesaid punishments.8. Heard Mr.M.Rajavelu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 20199. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution have miserably failed to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has to be drawn. According to the learned counsel, the evidences let in by the witnesses namely P.W.9 and P.W.15, who claimed to have last seen the accused and the deceased together, are not reliable witnesses. It is his further submission that the conducts of P.W.6 & P.W.7, who are the father and mother of the deceased girl respectively, are unnatural since both of them were aware that their minor daughter had gone missing from 03.07.2014, but had not chosen to give a police complaint. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.11 – Manager of Jayapriya Guest House cannot be relied upon since he had identified the accused only in the Court and no test identification parade was conducted. So also, the evidence of P.W.15, who is the Manager of J Lodge. Since these vital links in a case which rests upon circumstantial evidence, are missing, the judgment of the Trial Court requires to be set aside.10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the oral testimonies of P.W.6 and P.W.7 are cogent and both of them Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019have spoken about the telephone conversation they had with both the accused, as well as the deceased, after she had left the house. Since both the accused, as well as the deceased had informed them that they married each other, they had not chosen to give a police complaint. By placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.9, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused and the deceased were last seen together on 08.07.2014 by this witness, on which date, the accused had done her to death. Likewise, he also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.15, who had also seen both the accused and deceased together. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the oral evidences of P.W.16, who is the post-mortem doctor, as well as the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P16) and claimed it to be a case of murder. Since P.W.6, P.W.7, as well as P.W.11 and P.W.15 have confirmed that the deceased and the accused were staying together, the accused is deemed to have committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the deceased, in view of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Since the accused had also attempted to cause disappearance of the body, the Trial Court had rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 201 also and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201911. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective counsels and have gone through the original records available before this Court. 12. The law relating to appreciation of evidences in a case that rests purely on circumstances, has been well settled in a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The over all ratio laid down in these cases is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, shall be fully established and such facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. In other words, they should exclude every possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence, so complete, as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. With these golden principles in mind, we shall now analyze the circumstances available before the Trial Court, by which the guilt of the accused was recorded.Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201913. Cause of death: The Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) and the Village Assistant (P.W.2), on hearing the news that a girl's dead body was found in a water channel, had gone to the scene. There, they found the legs of the dead body tied up. The prosecution had also examined P.W.4 and his brother (P.W.3), who had first seen the corpse. P.W.16 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and had recorded that the right greater horn of the hyoid bone fractured with inward compression tight. The Scientific Officer (P.W.20) had deposed that a diatom was found in the sternum. The final opinion of the post-mortem doctor (P.W.16) on the cause of death was due to drowning and throttling causing asphyxia and shock due to injury on the vital organs. In the background of these evidences, the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the death was one of a culpable homicide. We are in agreement with such a finding, in view of the convincing evidences before it.14. In order to fix the culpability of the crime on the accused, the prosecution had set forth the following other circumstances before the Trial Court.Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201915. Last seen theory:- P.W.9 claims to have seen the accused along with the deceased on 08.07.2014. According to his testimony, the accused is an agent who had assured to procure employment for P.W.9's brother. On 08.07.2014, when the accused had called his brother's phone, he had attended the call since his brother had left the phone at home and gone to Pondicherry. The accused had informed P.W.9 that he was coming to Tindivanam from Chennai and asked him to pick him up. He therefore had gone to the main road in his two-wheeler, when he saw the accused getting down from bus with a 15 year old girl, whom the accused had introduced her as his aunt's daughter and claimed that he was taking her for the purpose of assisting in household work. P.W.9 had thereafter dropped both of them near a bridge. 16. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.9 had specifically stated that he was a stranger to the accused, until he had received a phone call from the accused to his brother's mobile. He claims to have seen both the accused and the deceased on 08.07.2014 and was examined as a witness before the Trial Court on 29.11.2018, which is after more than Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019four years. In other words, P.W.9 had identified the accused for the first time after the alleged incident only before the Trial Court. Admittedly, the prosecution did not conduct any test identification parade in this case. We fail to understand as to how a stranger, who had seen both the deceased and the accused about 4½ years back, can recollect and identify them after so many years. However, in paragraph 87 of the judgment, the Trial Court had proceeded as if the accused was known to P.W.9 as an employment agent. On the basis of this observation, it has proceeded that P.W.9 was a proper witness to speak about having seen both the accused and the deceased together on 08.07.2014. We do not endorse this view of the Trial Court. 17. The other witness put forth before the Trial Court was P.W.15, who is the Manager of J Lodge, where the prosecution claims that both the accused and deceased were staying together from 03.07.2014 to 08.07.2014. In his oral testimony, P.W.15 would state that on 03.07.2015, the accused along with a girl whom he claimed to be his wife, had booked Room No.208 and stayed there till 08.07.2014. However, since P.W.15 did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019witness by the prosecution. Thereafter, the CCTV footage recorded inside the lodge was played to the accused, wherein, he had admitted that the image along with a girl was himself. However, he claimed that he did not know who the girl near him was. The Trial Court had recorded that the evidence available in the CCTV footage in Ex.P15 – CD, is an additional evidence to the prosecution's case. Admittedly, the prosecution had not obtained the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to support Ex.P15. On the other hand, it had placed reliance on the written statement made by the accused under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. that the image in the CCTV footage was himself and his further statement that he had informed his brother that his lover was staying in the opposite lodge. 18. For the purpose of placing reliance on the electronic evidence (Ex.P15) as a corroborative piece of evidence, the Trial Court had placed reliance in the case of this Court in 'K.Ramajayam @ Appu Vs. The Inspector of Police' in Crl.A.No.1110 of 2015 & Referred Trial No.1 of 2015 dated 27.01.2016.Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201919. Furthermore, the judgment of this Court in K.Ramajayam @ Appu's case (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal' reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, after the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the Trial Court ought not to have given any weightage to Ex.P.15, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's case (supra), as well as in several other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that oral evidence cannot be a substitute for a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had considered these decisions on the aforesaid proposition in the case of 'Yuvaraj Vs. State' reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Madras 3621 and had summed up the legal position in the following manner:-....“202. In view of the above, the present legal position on electronic records can be summed up thus:a) The certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records.Page 19 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019b) Oral evidence cannot be a substitute for a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.c) As long as the trial is not over, it is always left open to the Trial Court to direct the certificate to be produced at any stage.d) Where the requisite certificate has been called for or requested from the person or the authority concerned and they refuse to give the certificate or do not respond, it is left open to the party to apply to the Court for the production of the certificate by taking recourse to Section 91 and/or Section 311 of Cr. P.C. The Court itself has the power to call for such a certificate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.e) Where the certificate is not produced even after an order is passed by the Court or the production of such a certificate becomes impossible, it is left open to the Court to dispense with the certificate.f) Where the primary evidence (original document like computer, mobile phone, hard disk etc.) is produced, the certificate under Section 65-B (4) is unnecessary and g) The dictum in Sonu case, even after it is specifically referred in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar case, was not disturbed and hence, in cases where the electronic evidence is allowed to come on record without any Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019objection, it will then not be open to any party to dispute its admissibility at the Appellate stage. This will also equally apply to a Section 65-B certificate marked without objection and its form and non-fulfilment of some of the requirements under Section 65-B(2)(b) and/or Section 65-B(4)(b), cannot be raised for the first time before the Appellate Court.....”21. Thus, we do not approve the findings of the Trial Court in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.15, for establishing the presence of the accused along with the deceased. Hence, the evidence of P.W.15 is required to be treated as wholly unreliable.22. In 'Kannan and others Vs. State of Kerala' reported in (1979) 3 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that when a witness identifies an accused, who is not known to him, in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless, unless there has been a previous test identification parade to test his powers of observation. The idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019to identify an unknown person, whom the witness may have seen only once. If no test identification parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. 23. In this background, the Trial Court ought not to have placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W.9, who had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen the accused prior to 08.07.2014. Thus, it would be wholly unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.W.9 for the purpose of substantiating the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution.24. Apart from P.W.9 and P.W.15, the prosecution had not let in any other evidence to substantiate the presence of the deceased in the company of the accused on the fateful day or immediately before the day. In the absence of the same, one of the vital links put forth by the prosecution to substantiate their case based on circumstantial evidence, has snapped.25. Motive:- The lust of the accused to sexually exploit a 16 year old girl and to avoid future trouble has been projected as a motive for the Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019accused to kill the deceased girl by the prosecution. The Trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7, who are the parents of the deceased, as well as P.W.11, who is the Manager of Jayapriya Guest House, where it is alleged that the accused along with the deceased and her mother had stayed in Room No.303 on 18.06.2014. Admittedly, the mother of the deceased appears to have knowledge of the alleged stay of the accused and the deceased together, since she had accompanied them to the lodge. Thereafter, the mother (P.W.7) along with the deceased had returned home. After about 15 days, it is alleged that the accused had taken the deceased on 03.07.2014 and stayed with her till 08.07.2014. When the accused is alleged to have anticipated future trouble from the family of the deceased, there is no explanation as to how he had permitted the deceased and her mother to return home on 18.06.2014. The prosecution has not explained as to any complaints or threats from the deceased's family members between 18.06.2014 and 03.07.2014. 26. The Trial Court only on surmises, had presumed that the motive to do away with the deceased was to avoid future trouble. Such a finding was not based on any evidence at all. Thus, the other important link to the Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019chain of circumstances, namely motive, has not been properly established by the prosecution. In this regard, we do not approve the findings of the Trial Court that there was a motive for the accused to do away with the deceased. 27. From the above discussion, it stands substantially proved that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove the culpability of the accused, nor his presence with the deceased immediately surrounding the day of occurrence. When there was no acceptable evidence to even remotely indicate the presence of the accused along with the deceased, the offence under Section 364 IPC or under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has not been made out at all. The Trial Court, since had come to the conclusion that there was a clear motive and the deceased was last seen with the accused, had accordingly found the accused to be guilty for the offence under Section 364 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 28. From our above findings that all the links to the chain of circumstances stand snapped, these two offences also have not been properly established by the prosecution and therefore, recording of guilt Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019by the Trial Court for the offences under Section 364 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, cannot be upheld. 29. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 26.04.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2019, is set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted from all the levelled charges and is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with the other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be refunded and the bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand discharged.30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 18.06.2025 Index: YesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesSniNote: Issue Order Copy on 19.06.2025Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniTo1.The Mahila Court, Cuddalore2.The Inspector of Police,Killai Police Station, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.Pre-delivery judgment made inCrl.A.No.566 of 201918.06.2025Page 26 of 26

Crl.A.No.566 of 20192. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as their respective ranks before the Trial Court.4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had an illicit affair with the deceased, aged about 16 years and who belonged to scheduled caste community. According to the prosecution, the accused lured both the mother, as well as the deceased, by offering to buy the girl laptop, took both of them to Jayapriya Guest House at Cuddalore on 18.06.2014 and committed penetrative sexual assault on the deceased. After few days on 03.07.2014, he again took the deceased to J Lodge and stayed there till 08.07.2014, during which period, he repeatedly subjected the deceased to penetrative sexual assault. He then took the assistance of one Pushparaj to drop them at Parangipettai. After the said Pushparaj had dropped them, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and attacked her with stick and strangulated her to death. He then tied her legs with her dress and dumped the body in a nearby channel. The body was discovered by the villagers Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019on 10.07.2014 and thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer had given a written complaint, which was registered under Section 174(1) of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.120 of 2014 by Killai Police. After investigation, a final report was filed against the accused, charging him of having committed the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 r/w. 302 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (POA) and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 5. In order to prove their case, the prosecution had examined 24 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked 37 documents namely Exs.P1 to P37, apart from 54 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.54. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked.6.1. In order to establish their case before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined the father (P.W.6) and mother (P.W.7) of the deceased before the Trial Court. According to the father (P.W.6), the deceased was born on 08.01.1998, as per her original birth certificate (Ex.P37). He had also deposed that the accused had taken his daughter Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019and wife (P.W.7) to some place about a month before her death and a few days later, when his daughter went missing, he had contacted the accused on his cellphone, when he had informed him that he had married his daughter. He also spoke about his daughter confirming the marriage. During the course of trial, when the CCTV footage (Ex.P15) was played to him, he had identified both the accused and his daughter at the lodge. 6.2. P.W.7 – mother, corroborates the testimony of her husband (P.W.6) and spoke about the marriage of her daughter with the accused about which she was informed by the accused.6.3. K.Pushparaj (P.W.9) is an employment agent of the brother of the accused, who had seen both the accused and the deceased on 08.07.2014 at about 06.00 to 07.00 P.M. According to P.W.9, the accused had called him to pick him up from Thaikkal. He also spoke about picking up the accused and the deceased girl in his motorcycle and dropping them at Parangipettai and enroute, when the accused bought liquor.6.4. V.Gowtham (P.W.11) is the Manager of Jayapriya Guest House, who confirmed that the accused and the deceased had booked a room in the lodge on 18.06.2014 at 06.00 P.M. in Room No.3. The ledger entry No.2917 in this regard, was marked as Ex.P8. He further testified that the Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019accused had also booked Room No.204 on 15.07.2014 at 07.15 P.M, under the ledger entry No.2955 and stayed there with a transgender.6.5. Mr.P.Krishnakumar (P.W.15) is the Manager of J Lodge at Lawrence Road, Cuddalore. As per his statement, the accused along with one girl had booked a room on 03.07.2014 and vacated the Room No.208 on 07.07.2014. The ledger entry in page No.77, in this regard, was marked as Ex.P12. Thereafter, on 08.07.2014, the accused had again booked the same Room No.208 under ledger entry No.79, which was marked as Ex.P13. According to him, both the accused and the deceased girl had vacated the room the next day on 08.07.2014. The Investigating Officer had also recovered the CCTV footage from the lodge. When the CCTV footage was played to the accused, he had admitted that the image in the footage was his but he did not know who the girl was.6.6. S.Rajiv Gandhi (P.W.3) is a villager, who saw the body of the deceased in the channel with the legs tied. He then went and informed his brother S.Veerappan (P.W.4), who also came and saw the body. 6.7. P.W.5 is another villager who had turned hostile. 6.8. On receiving information about the discovery of the body, the Village Assistant (P.W.2) had informed the Village Administrative Officer Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019(P.W.1), who went to the scene. Thereafter, he had given a written complaint (Ex.P1) to the police. The Investigating Officer, had prepared a seizure mahazar and recovered 21 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.21 from the place in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.6.9. N.Sethumanikam (P.W.8) is the Village Administrative Officer and the witness to the arrest of the accused, in whose presence, the accused gave his voluntary confession. According to him, the accused was arrested on 16.07.2014 at 12.45 P.M. at Ponnathota Village. The admitted portion of the confession statement was marked as Ex.P5 and the personal belongings of the accused (M.O.29 to M.O.39) were seized under Ex.P6 in his presence. 6.10. Dr.S.Senthil (P.W.12) had conducted the potency test of the accused and certified through Ex.P10 that the accused was not impotent.6.11. Dr.Lakshmi (P.W.16) is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. According to her, when the post-mortem was conducted at 05.15 P.M. on 11.07.2014, the body was in highly decomposed state with lots of maggots. In the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P16), she had recorded several injuries during the post-mortem, including the fracture on 'right greater horn' (hyoid bone). Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019According to her opinion, the deceased could have died before 5 to 9 days from the date of post-mortem. In her final opinion, she had stated that the deceased would appeared to have probably died due to drowning and throttling causing severe asphyxia and shock with injury to vital organs about 5 to 9 days prior to autopsy. 6.12. Mrs.Anbuselvi (P.W.17), who is the Tahsildar, had confirmed through the community certificate (Ex.P17) of the accused that he belongs to vanniyar community.6.13. Dr.Subashini (P.W.18), is the doctor who gave the viscera report (Ex.P24), certifying that no alcohol or other poison was detected in any of the body parts. 6.14. Dr.Gitanjali (P.W.19) is the bone analyst, who had examined the hyoid bone and through her report (Ex.P19), she had certified that the hyoid was not intact and the right greater horn was fractured (inward compression tight).6.15. Mr.R.Manikam (P.W.20) is the forensic expert, through whom the biological report (Ex.P22), serology report (Ex.P23) and viscera report (Ex.P24) were marked. As per his report, blood was detected on 4 items of clothes of the deceased and the result was disintegrated in all the four Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019items.6.16. Mr.S.Sivagnanam (P.W.21) is the Sub Inspector of Police who had received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the F.I.R in Crime No.120 of 2014 under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. 6.17. Mr.N.Ramachandiran (P.W.22) is the Tahsildar who had issued the community certificate (Ex.P26) of the deceased, certifying her as belonging to scheduled caste community. 6.18. Mrs.Meena (P.W.23) is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the initial investigation. On receiving the information about the incident, she had gone to the place where the body was found at 06.00 A.M. on 11.07.2014 and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P27) and rough sketch (Ex.P28). She then recovered the traces and other articles of the deceased from the scene under seizure mahazar (Ex.P29) and marked them as M.O.40 to M.O.49. Thereafter, an inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased and inquest report (Ex.P30) was prepared. From about 50 meters from the scene, 21 suspicious items were recovered under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P2). All these were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Form 95. She then prepared an alteration report (Ex.P31), altering the offence from Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. to Section 302 Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019IPC. After examining several persons, she had arrested the accused at 12.00 Noon of 16.07.2014 in southern side of Ponnathota bridge. His voluntary confession was then recorded in front of the witnesses. Thereafter, she had made arrangements for remand of the accused. Based on his confession, the offences were once again altered from Sections 302 IPC, 376(A) IPC and 302 IPC r/w. Section 4 of POCSO Act. The alteration report was marked as Ex.P32. When it was known that the accused belong to vanniyar community and the deceased belonged to scheduled community, she once again prepared an alteration report (Ex.P33), by including the offence under Sections 3 to 5 of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.6.19. The investigation was then handed over to Mr.R.Rajaram, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.24). On taking up the investigation, he had gone to Jayapriya Guest House and seized the arrival and departure book containing Serial Nos.2901 to 3000. The ledger was marked as M.O.50, in which page No.2917 relating to Room No.303, was marked as Ex.P8. Likewise, page No.2955 relating to Room No.204 was marked as Ex.P9. He then proceeded to J Lodge and under a seizure mahazar (Ex.P34), he had seized the CCTV footage through a CD, which was Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019marked as Ex.P15.6.20. Serial No.67 in M.O.51 – ledger, records that the accused was staying at Room No.208, which entry was marked as Ex.P12. Likewise, Serial No.79 evidencing the accused staying on 07.07.2014 at Room No.208 was marked as Ex.P13. In order to ascertain the DNA of the deceased, he had collected the blood samples of the deceased, as well as P.W.6 (father) and P.W.7 (mother). The DNA report was marked as Ex.P35 series. The Chudhidar, dupatta and the photographs of the body were all marked as M.O.52, M.O.53 and M.O.54 series. On completion of the investigation, he had filed a final report on 09.12.2014. The final alteration report was marked as Ex.P.36.7. On the strength of these oral and documentary evidences before it, the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of the accused and sentenced him to the aforesaid punishments.8. Heard Mr.M.Rajavelu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 20199. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution have miserably failed to establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt has to be drawn. According to the learned counsel, the evidences let in by the witnesses namely P.W.9 and P.W.15, who claimed to have last seen the accused and the deceased together, are not reliable witnesses. It is his further submission that the conducts of P.W.6 & P.W.7, who are the father and mother of the deceased girl respectively, are unnatural since both of them were aware that their minor daughter had gone missing from 03.07.2014, but had not chosen to give a police complaint. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.11 – Manager of Jayapriya Guest House cannot be relied upon since he had identified the accused only in the Court and no test identification parade was conducted. So also, the evidence of P.W.15, who is the Manager of J Lodge. Since these vital links in a case which rests upon circumstantial evidence, are missing, the judgment of the Trial Court requires to be set aside.10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the oral testimonies of P.W.6 and P.W.7 are cogent and both of them Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019have spoken about the telephone conversation they had with both the accused, as well as the deceased, after she had left the house. Since both the accused, as well as the deceased had informed them that they married each other, they had not chosen to give a police complaint. By placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.9, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused and the deceased were last seen together on 08.07.2014 by this witness, on which date, the accused had done her to death. Likewise, he also placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.15, who had also seen both the accused and deceased together. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the oral evidences of P.W.16, who is the post-mortem doctor, as well as the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P16) and claimed it to be a case of murder. Since P.W.6, P.W.7, as well as P.W.11 and P.W.15 have confirmed that the deceased and the accused were staying together, the accused is deemed to have committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the deceased, in view of the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Since the accused had also attempted to cause disappearance of the body, the Trial Court had rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 201 also and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201911. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective counsels and have gone through the original records available before this Court. 12. The law relating to appreciation of evidences in a case that rests purely on circumstances, has been well settled in a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The over all ratio laid down in these cases is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, shall be fully established and such facts should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. In other words, they should exclude every possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency. There must be a chain of evidence, so complete, as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. With these golden principles in mind, we shall now analyze the circumstances available before the Trial Court, by which the guilt of the accused was recorded.Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201913. Cause of death: The Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) and the Village Assistant (P.W.2), on hearing the news that a girl's dead body was found in a water channel, had gone to the scene. There, they found the legs of the dead body tied up. The prosecution had also examined P.W.4 and his brother (P.W.3), who had first seen the corpse. P.W.16 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and had recorded that the right greater horn of the hyoid bone fractured with inward compression tight. The Scientific Officer (P.W.20) had deposed that a diatom was found in the sternum. The final opinion of the post-mortem doctor (P.W.16) on the cause of death was due to drowning and throttling causing asphyxia and shock due to injury on the vital organs. In the background of these evidences, the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the death was one of a culpable homicide. We are in agreement with such a finding, in view of the convincing evidences before it.14. In order to fix the culpability of the crime on the accused, the prosecution had set forth the following other circumstances before the Trial Court.Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201915. Last seen theory:- P.W.9 claims to have seen the accused along with the deceased on 08.07.2014. According to his testimony, the accused is an agent who had assured to procure employment for P.W.9's brother. On 08.07.2014, when the accused had called his brother's phone, he had attended the call since his brother had left the phone at home and gone to Pondicherry. The accused had informed P.W.9 that he was coming to Tindivanam from Chennai and asked him to pick him up. He therefore had gone to the main road in his two-wheeler, when he saw the accused getting down from bus with a 15 year old girl, whom the accused had introduced her as his aunt's daughter and claimed that he was taking her for the purpose of assisting in household work. P.W.9 had thereafter dropped both of them near a bridge. 16. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.9 had specifically stated that he was a stranger to the accused, until he had received a phone call from the accused to his brother's mobile. He claims to have seen both the accused and the deceased on 08.07.2014 and was examined as a witness before the Trial Court on 29.11.2018, which is after more than Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019four years. In other words, P.W.9 had identified the accused for the first time after the alleged incident only before the Trial Court. Admittedly, the prosecution did not conduct any test identification parade in this case. We fail to understand as to how a stranger, who had seen both the deceased and the accused about 4½ years back, can recollect and identify them after so many years. However, in paragraph 87 of the judgment, the Trial Court had proceeded as if the accused was known to P.W.9 as an employment agent. On the basis of this observation, it has proceeded that P.W.9 was a proper witness to speak about having seen both the accused and the deceased together on 08.07.2014. We do not endorse this view of the Trial Court. 17. The other witness put forth before the Trial Court was P.W.15, who is the Manager of J Lodge, where the prosecution claims that both the accused and deceased were staying together from 03.07.2014 to 08.07.2014. In his oral testimony, P.W.15 would state that on 03.07.2015, the accused along with a girl whom he claimed to be his wife, had booked Room No.208 and stayed there till 08.07.2014. However, since P.W.15 did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019witness by the prosecution. Thereafter, the CCTV footage recorded inside the lodge was played to the accused, wherein, he had admitted that the image along with a girl was himself. However, he claimed that he did not know who the girl near him was. The Trial Court had recorded that the evidence available in the CCTV footage in Ex.P15 – CD, is an additional evidence to the prosecution's case. Admittedly, the prosecution had not obtained the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to support Ex.P15. On the other hand, it had placed reliance on the written statement made by the accused under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. that the image in the CCTV footage was himself and his further statement that he had informed his brother that his lover was staying in the opposite lodge. 18. For the purpose of placing reliance on the electronic evidence (Ex.P15) as a corroborative piece of evidence, the Trial Court had placed reliance in the case of this Court in 'K.Ramajayam @ Appu Vs. The Inspector of Police' in Crl.A.No.1110 of 2015 & Referred Trial No.1 of 2015 dated 27.01.2016.Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 201919. Furthermore, the judgment of this Court in K.Ramajayam @ Appu's case (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal' reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, after the judgment was pronounced by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the Trial Court ought not to have given any weightage to Ex.P.15, in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 20. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's case (supra), as well as in several other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that oral evidence cannot be a substitute for a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had considered these decisions on the aforesaid proposition in the case of 'Yuvaraj Vs. State' reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Madras 3621 and had summed up the legal position in the following manner:-....“202. In view of the above, the present legal position on electronic records can be summed up thus:a) The certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records.Page 19 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019b) Oral evidence cannot be a substitute for a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.c) As long as the trial is not over, it is always left open to the Trial Court to direct the certificate to be produced at any stage.d) Where the requisite certificate has been called for or requested from the person or the authority concerned and they refuse to give the certificate or do not respond, it is left open to the party to apply to the Court for the production of the certificate by taking recourse to Section 91 and/or Section 311 of Cr. P.C. The Court itself has the power to call for such a certificate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 165 of the Evidence Act.e) Where the certificate is not produced even after an order is passed by the Court or the production of such a certificate becomes impossible, it is left open to the Court to dispense with the certificate.f) Where the primary evidence (original document like computer, mobile phone, hard disk etc.) is produced, the certificate under Section 65-B (4) is unnecessary and g) The dictum in Sonu case, even after it is specifically referred in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar case, was not disturbed and hence, in cases where the electronic evidence is allowed to come on record without any Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019objection, it will then not be open to any party to dispute its admissibility at the Appellate stage. This will also equally apply to a Section 65-B certificate marked without objection and its form and non-fulfilment of some of the requirements under Section 65-B(2)(b) and/or Section 65-B(4)(b), cannot be raised for the first time before the Appellate Court.....”21. Thus, we do not approve the findings of the Trial Court in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.15, for establishing the presence of the accused along with the deceased. Hence, the evidence of P.W.15 is required to be treated as wholly unreliable.22. In 'Kannan and others Vs. State of Kerala' reported in (1979) 3 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that when a witness identifies an accused, who is not known to him, in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless, unless there has been a previous test identification parade to test his powers of observation. The idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019to identify an unknown person, whom the witness may have seen only once. If no test identification parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court. 23. In this background, the Trial Court ought not to have placed any reliance on the evidence of P.W.9, who had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen the accused prior to 08.07.2014. Thus, it would be wholly unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.W.9 for the purpose of substantiating the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution.24. Apart from P.W.9 and P.W.15, the prosecution had not let in any other evidence to substantiate the presence of the deceased in the company of the accused on the fateful day or immediately before the day. In the absence of the same, one of the vital links put forth by the prosecution to substantiate their case based on circumstantial evidence, has snapped.25. Motive:- The lust of the accused to sexually exploit a 16 year old girl and to avoid future trouble has been projected as a motive for the Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019accused to kill the deceased girl by the prosecution. The Trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7, who are the parents of the deceased, as well as P.W.11, who is the Manager of Jayapriya Guest House, where it is alleged that the accused along with the deceased and her mother had stayed in Room No.303 on 18.06.2014. Admittedly, the mother of the deceased appears to have knowledge of the alleged stay of the accused and the deceased together, since she had accompanied them to the lodge. Thereafter, the mother (P.W.7) along with the deceased had returned home. After about 15 days, it is alleged that the accused had taken the deceased on 03.07.2014 and stayed with her till 08.07.2014. When the accused is alleged to have anticipated future trouble from the family of the deceased, there is no explanation as to how he had permitted the deceased and her mother to return home on 18.06.2014. The prosecution has not explained as to any complaints or threats from the deceased's family members between 18.06.2014 and 03.07.2014. 26. The Trial Court only on surmises, had presumed that the motive to do away with the deceased was to avoid future trouble. Such a finding was not based on any evidence at all. Thus, the other important link to the Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019chain of circumstances, namely motive, has not been properly established by the prosecution. In this regard, we do not approve the findings of the Trial Court that there was a motive for the accused to do away with the deceased. 27. From the above discussion, it stands substantially proved that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove the culpability of the accused, nor his presence with the deceased immediately surrounding the day of occurrence. When there was no acceptable evidence to even remotely indicate the presence of the accused along with the deceased, the offence under Section 364 IPC or under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has not been made out at all. The Trial Court, since had come to the conclusion that there was a clear motive and the deceased was last seen with the accused, had accordingly found the accused to be guilty for the offence under Section 364 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 28. From our above findings that all the links to the chain of circumstances stand snapped, these two offences also have not been properly established by the prosecution and therefore, recording of guilt Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019by the Trial Court for the offences under Section 364 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, cannot be upheld. 29. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 26.04.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2019, is set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted from all the levelled charges and is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with the other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, shall be refunded and the bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand discharged.30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 18.06.2025 Index: YesSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesSniNote: Issue Order Copy on 19.06.2025Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.566 of 2019M.S.RAMESH, J.andN. SENTHILKUMAR, J.SniTo1.The Mahila Court, Cuddalore2.The Inspector of Police,Killai Police Station, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.4.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.Pre-delivery judgment made inCrl.A.No.566 of 201918.06.2025Page 26 of 26