High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 18.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMARCrl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.15244 of 2025N.Murthy ... Petitioner/A3VersusThe State Represented byThe Inspector of Police,Karumalai Koodal Police Station,Salem District.(Crime No.351 of 2020)... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 r/2 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order the order dated 30.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal POCSO Court, Salem.For Petitioner: Mr.T.Sai KrishnanFor Respondent: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public ProsecutorPage No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025O R D E RThe Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order the order dated 30.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal POCSO Court, Salem.2. The petitioner is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, Section 5(1) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition before this Court seeking further investigation for the reason that the victim girl's date of birth, as registered in Jawahar Elementary School, Karumalaikoodal, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, is 15.07.2006, which is not correct, and the correct date of birth is 23.03.1996, and she is not a minor. Hence, the case cannot proceed against the petitioner under the POCSO Act.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner recently gained access to the Aadhaar card of the victim, which Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025prompted him to file a petition. This Court, considering the petitioner's submission, by order dated 23.09.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.16566 of 2021, directed the Trial Court to entertain the objection of the petitioner, conduct an enquiry, and determine the age with an authoritative pronouncement. On such direction, the Trial Court entertained the petitioner's application in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 and fixed the age of the victim as 15 years by order dated 30.07.2025. Against which, the present petition is filed.5. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent had filed their objection before the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020, wherein it was confirmed that the victim's birth certificate, as claimed by her parents, had not been obtained either from the hospital or from the local authority. On 09.12.2021, the Trial Court was pleased to pass an order to send for the document, namely the school students' admission register, which is maintained regularly, and the school students' deletion register or record sheet register for the period from 2010 to 2016. Thereafter, the admission register was produced. From the admission register, it was found that on 14.11.2011, one Chitra sought admission for the student Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025bearing the name of the victim, said to be born on 15.07.2006. The school admission register also contains the details of the victim's younger brother, G.Shankar, wherein his date of birth is recorded as 23.05.2006. In the school application of the victim, one Chitra had signed as the guardian, but in the application of G.Shankar, a thumb impression of Govindammal, the mother of the victim, has been affixed. Thus, it is not possible for Govindammal to have give birth to baby, the victim on 15.07.2006 and a boy, G.Shankar on 23.05.2006. Strangely, during the enquiry, a birth certificate dated 31.03.2022 for a female child said to have been born on 21.02.2004 and registered on 01.03.2004 was produced, without mentioning the name or the victim, thereafter with the name of the victim through the Sub-Registrar of Mettur, who was examined as C.W.1. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked.6. The specific stand of the prosecution is that the birth of the victim not registered, hence production of the birth certificate raises questions. The SRO confirmed that the name of the victim was entered in the birth certificate at the request of the Investigating Officer. Hence, the procedures contemplated under Section 14 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 along with Rule 10 of the Model Registration of Births and Deaths Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025Rules, 1999 not followed and there is anomaly in the school certificate produced. Left with no other option, following Section 94(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, an ossification test should be conducted to determine the age of the victim. Without following these procedures, the Trial Court's fixing the age of victim as per Section 34(2) of the POCSO Act is not proper. Hence, it is prayed that the same be set aside.7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, the petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 351 of 2020. After investigation, the case against him that he committed penetrative sexual assault, resulting in the victim becoming pregnant confirmed and charge sheet filed. Now the victim delivered a male baby, and the DNA test confirmed the paternity of the petitioner. In the charge sheet, 19 witnesses listed, and the case has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020. PW1, the mother of the victim girl, and PW2, the victim, both examined on 09.08.2021 confirming the prosecution's case. The petitioner not cross examined both PW1 & PW2 on the other hand filed a petition before this Court and stalled the trial.Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 20258. However, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court alleging that the victim's date of birth is incorrect, claiming as 23.03.1996 instead of 15.07.2006, which he claims to find out recently after accessing the victim's Aadhaar card. Further, LW10, the Doctor at the Primary Health Centre, Kompurankadu, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, who conducted the delivery of the child on 15.05.2020, recorded the victim's age as 19 years in the AR copy. The petitioner filed a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16566 of 2021, and this Court, on 23.09.2021, directed the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the Trial Court to consider the objection and fix the age of the victim.9. The Trial Court entertained the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 and passed an interim order on 09.12.2021, directing the school authorities to produce the admission register and school student deletion register for the period from 2010 to 2016. The school authorities produced the admission register, copy of the application, and admission register. The petitioner took a stand that the victim's brother, G.Shankar's date of birth is recorded as 23.05.2006, and hence, the date of birth of the victim as 15.07.2006 may not be correct, which Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025is a mere presumption of the petitioner.10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that Admission No.6057 was issued on 14.11.2011, in which one Chitra signed in the application form, and the parent's name has been shown as Govindammal. As regards the application of the victim's brother dated 06.06.2012, the parent's name has been shown as Govindaraj and Govindammal, and the applicant there affixed the thumb impression. In the school register, the corresponding entries made, and there has been some discrepancy in the name of the parent in the two certificates.11. In this case, the victim hails from a panchayat in Salem, usually birth registered by Panchayat officials and after sometime submitted to the SRO. Hence, SRO Mettur was examined as CW1 and through him, C1 and C2 marked. C1 and C2 show that the date of birth of the victim is 21.02.2004.12. It is further submitted that in this case, the petitioner had not chosen to question or dispute the statement of CW1. Thereafter, the Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025petitioner filed this petition disputing the manner in which C1 and C2 produced. The Trial Court fixing the date of birth of the victim as per the school records as 15.07.2006 and now making a wild allegation that Section 14 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 10 of the Model Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 not followed and as per Section 94(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, seeking an ossification test based on the statement of LW10 – Doctor, Ramamoorthy, would not be proper.13. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.14. From the admitted facts, it is seen that the occurrence in this case said to have taken place in the early part of 2020. The victim experienced abdominal pain on 15.05.2020 and was thereafter taken to the Primary Health Centre, Kompurankadu, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, where her pregnancy was confirmed. The victim confirmed that it was the petitioner who committed penetrative sexual assault on her and further he threatened her not to disclose the same. Hence, she had not informed or disclosed the facts till she was medically examined.Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 202515. The victim and her family belong to a poor with socio-economically backward status. Subsequently, the victim delivered a baby, and DNA test confirmed the petitioner’s paternity. The victim and her mother examined as PW1 and PW2 on 09.08.2021, but both not cross-examined.16. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16566 of 2021, questioning the age of the victim. This Court directed the Trial Court to confirm the age of the victim and determine the age with an authoritative pronouncement within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Though it was directed to be completed within three weeks, but got stretched to three years. Finally, an order was passed in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2011 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 on 30.07.2025.17. The petitioner has once again approached this Court, seeking to set aside the fixation of the victim’s age as 15 years, citing procedural lapses and discrepancies in the school admission register, school application, admission register, the certificate issued by the SRO, and the entries in the AR copy. Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025The petitioner now seeks an ossification test. The ossification test is not required in this case, since both the birth certificate and the educational certificate are available. The petitioner disputes these documents, but it is open to him to challenge the same during the cross-examination of the relevant witnesses.18. The school authorities and the Doctor cited as witnesses yet to be examined. So far, the petitioner has not even cross-examined PW1 & PW2. This Court finds the conduct of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings for obvious reasons. In POCSO Case, the law mandates the trial to be completed within a stipulated time frame. It has already been five years, and the victim continues to suffer.19. In view of the above, this Court directs that the finding of the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.611 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.80 of 2020 regarding the fixation of the date of birth of the victim shall be kept apart till completing recording of evidence of all witnesses, thereafter, the Trial Court shall consider this issue at the final stage, taking into account all the evidence produced by both the prosecution and the defense if any.Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 202520. Further, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.21. In the result, this criminal revision case stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18.08.2025cdaIndex : Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNOTE: Issue order copy on 22.08.2025Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.cdaTo1.The Inspector of Police, Karumalai Koodal Police Station, Salem District.2.The Sessions Judge, Principal POCSO Court, Salem.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.1350 of 2025and Crl.M.P.No.15244 of 202518.08.2025Page No.12 of 12