Madras High Court
Murali vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
Murali : Appellant(s)
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Papanasam,
All Women Police Station, Papanasam,
(Crime No.01 of 2019)
2.Durga : Respondent(s)
(R2 impleaded as per common order dated
24.09.2024 of this Court)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for records and allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment and conviction dated 08.03.2023 passed by the
Principal Special Court for exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act
cases, Thanjavur in Special S.C.No.117 of 2019 and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was
delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The appellant (A1) has assailed the judgment passed in Special
S.C.No. 117 of 2022, dated 08.03.2023, on the file of the Principal
Special Court for exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act cases,
Thanjavur, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the
following manner.
Provision under which Sentence
convicted
Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 20,000/-, in default to undergo one
(hereinafter referred to as “POCSO year rigorous imprisonment
Act” for brevity) read with Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled. Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015
( hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST
Act” for brevity)
Sec. 363 of IPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to
undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the son, A2 is the father
and A3 is the mother of A1. A2 was running a brick kiln at Ullikadai
Village, Puthur and the parents of the victim girl were staying in the
brick kiln and were doing brick works. In May 2018, the victim girl was
staying with her parents and at that time, A1 is said to have developed a
relationship with the victim girl and sometime in the last week of July
2018, when the victim girl was proceeding to home, A1 is said to have
promised that he will marry the victim girl and had compelled the victim
girl and had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Even
thereafter, he indulged in forcible sexual intercourse repeatedly. As a
result, the victim girl became pregnant. When the same was informed to
A2 and A3, who are the parents of A1, they are said to have scolded the
victim in filthy language and forced the victim girl to abort the child.
3. The above incident was complained to the Panchayathars, but
however A1 refused to come to the Panchayat and as a result, a complaint
(Ex.P1) was given by PW1 to PW15. Based on the same, an FIR
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
(Ex.P12) came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2019 for offences under
Sections 5(j)(ii), 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) IPC.
4. PW16 took up the investigation and went to the place of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P3) and the rough
sketch (Ex.P13) in the presence of PW4 and another witness. PW16
examined the victim girl and recorded her statement. He also examined
PW2 and PW3, who are the mother and father of the victim girl and
recorded their statements.
5. The Investigating Officer arrested A1 to A3 and they were
produced before the concerned Court and remanded to judicial custody.
6. The victim girl was subjected to medical examination by PW9
on 15.02.2019 and at that point of time, she was eight months pregnant.
The necessary entries were made in the accident register, which was
marked as Ex.P5.
7. The investigation was continued by PW17 and it was
ascertained that the victim girl belonged to Scheduled Caste community
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
and the accused person belonged to Ambalakarar community and hence,
the offences were altered to Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of the POCSO Act,
Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, through the
alteration report (Ex.P14).
8. The Investigating Officer forwarded A1 for medical
examination, which was conducted by PW13, who issued the medical
certificate (Ex.P10).
9. The Investigating Officer, in order to ascertain the biological
father of the child, took steps to conduct DNA analysis and the same was
handed over to PW14, who is the Deputy Director of Forensic Lab,
Chennai. The DNA report (Ex.P11) revealed that A1 is the biological
father of the child which was born to the victim girl by then.
10. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and collected all relevant
materials and documents and on completion of investigation, laid the
final report before the Special Court.
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
11. The Special Court framed the charges against A1 for offences
under Sections 11(iv) read with Section 12, Section 5(l) read with 6,
Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 366(A) of
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Insofar as A2 and A3 are
concerned, charges were framed under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. All the accused persons denied the
charges and pleaded not guilty.
12. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P14.
13. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the
accused persons when they were questioned under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as false.
14. The accused persons did not examine any witnesses nor did
they rely upon any documents.
15. The trial court on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case insofar as A2
and A3 are concerned and accordingly acquitted them from all charges.
A1 was convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated supra.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
16. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
17. PW1 is the victim girl, who has clearly spoken about her
relationship with the accused person and the manner in which he made a
false promise to marry her and forcibly committed penetrative sexual
assault on her. As a result of which, the victim girl became pregnant.
18. PW2 and PW3 are the parents of PW1 and their evidence also
corroborates the evidence of PW1/victim girl.
19. Insofar as the age of the victim girl is concerned, PW5 has
spoken about the date of birth of the victim girl and the issuance of
Ex.P4/school certificate, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as
15.10.2001. This witness has not even been cross-examined on the side
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
of the accused person and therefore, there is nothing to rebut the date of
birth as is revealed in the certificate issued by PW5.
20. The next important witness is PW9, who speaks about the
medical examination conducted on the victim girl and the issuance of
Ex.P5 accident register. PW9 has specifically stated that when she
examined the victim girl, she was eight months pregnant. She has also
stated as to what the victim girl informed her regarding the penetrative
sexual assault committed by the accused person.
21. The evidence of PW10 confirms the fact that the victim girl
belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the community certificate
(Ex.P6) confirms this fact.
22. Insofar as the community to which the accused person belongs,
the same has been proved through the evidence of PW12 through whom
the community certificates were marked as Exs.P7 to Ex.P9.
23. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, which was corroborated by the
evidence of PW5, gets further corroborated by the evidence of PW14,
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
who conducted the DNA test and gave the DNA report marked as
Ex.P11. This confirmed the fact that A1 is the biological father of the
child.
24. Thus, from a collective assessment of the evidence available on
record, it is clear that the victim girl was a minor child and A1 committed
penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, which resulted in the
delivery of the child for which A1 was confirmed as the biological father.
The prosecution not only laid the foundational facts but has actually
proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
25. A careful reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 shows that
the accused person had an affair with the victim girl and it is stated that
he promised to marry the victim girl and had committed repeated
penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. The evidence of PW2 who is
the mother of the victim girl shows that it was only the victim girl who
was refusing to marry the accused person. That does not in any way
detract the fact that the offence under the POCSO Act has been made out
and even assuming that there was consent on the side of the victim girl
for the sake of arguments, such consent is non est in the eye of law.
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
26. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction imposed by
the trial court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act does not require the
interference of this Court.
27. The next charge against the accused person (A1) is under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The community of the victim girl and
the community of A1 has been established. However, that by itself is not
a ground for punishing A1 for offence under the SC/ST Act. An offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act will be attracted only if the
offence was committed only because the victim belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and that offence was committed to
belittle the victim girl. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Asharfi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2018 (1)
SCC 742. Useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in Dashrath Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 (1)
MWN (Cr.) 262. This judgment was followed by this Court in
V.Dhayanithi v. S.Babu, reported in 2024 (2) MWN (Cr.) 171.
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
28. The prosecution has certainly not proved the charge against A1
for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It is not even the
case of the prosecution that the offence was committed by the accused
person (A1) only because the victim girl belonged to the Scheduled Caste
community. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
court for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act cannot be
sustained.
29. Insofar as the offence under Section 363 of IPC is concerned, it
is seen that A1 had taken the victim girl to his sister’s house at
Malaiyanatham and had sexual intercourse. Admittedly, the victim girl
was below 18 years at the time of occurrence. Therefore, it clearly
amounts the kidnap from lawful guardianship, which is punishable under
Section 363 of IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial court for offence under Section 363 of IPC does not require the
interference of this Court.
30. The last issue is with regard to the sentence to be imposed for
offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court has imposed
life imprisonment. However, considering the fact that A1 and the victim
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
girl had a relationship and it was going on for sometime and at one point
of time, A1 was also willing to marry the victim girl which was refused
by the victim girl, the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating
circumstances and therefore, it does not warrant the extreme punishment
of life imprisonment. As on the date of the commission of the offence,
Section 6 provided for rigorous imprisonment for the term not less than
10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence to 10 years rigorous
imprisonment instead of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
31. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant is modified as hereunder:
Offence Sentence
Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act” for 10 years rigourous imprisonment
brevity) read with and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default
to undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act Acquitted from this charge
Sec. 363 of IPC 5 years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to
undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment.
The sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
32. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed in the above
terms.
[N.A.V., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]
23.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
PKN
To
1.The Principal Special Court
for exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act cases,
Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Papanasam,
All Women Police Station, Papanasam,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.261 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PKN
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.261 of 2024
23.03.2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 02:46:28 pm )