Madras High Court
Aravind vs State Represented By Its on 18 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
Aravind ... Appellant
Versus
State represented by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
Crime No.17 of 2015 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C seeking
against the judgement of learned Mahila Court, Cuddalore dated 08.01.2019
in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Suresh
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of Mahila Court at
Cuddalore dated 08.01.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2016.
2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant and
4 others in crime No.17 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 313, 506(i)
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. The Police after investigation since
offence alleged is against women especially child and falling under POCSO
Act and is triable by the Sessions Judge, laid charge sheet before the
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court Cuddalore. After completion of the
formalities, the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court framed two charges as against
5 accused. After trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the other accused (A-2
to A-5) and convicted the appellant/1st accused for the offence punishable
u/s.6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and
sentence, the appellant/1st accused has filed the present appeal before this
court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
appellant and the victim girl fall on love. During such time, she conceived.
Parents of the victim girl came to know that the appellant loved the victim
girl and so they left their daughter in the house of the accused. At that time,
the appellant and the victim girl have given birth to a child. Therefore,
hospital authorities approached the respondent police. The respondent
police investigated the matter and laid charge sheet. Though the other
accused were acquitted by the Special Court, this appellant has been
convicted. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The appellant has not taken the custody of the child from the natural
guardian. P.W.2/Victim girl’s father only took the victim girl and left her in
the house of the appellant. Appellant loved the victim girl. Therefore, he
has not committed any offence. Both the appellant and the victim fall on
love and at the instance of the parents of P.W.2, the marriage between the
appellant and the victim girl was arranged and the victim girl had already
completed 18 years and hence the appellant has not committed any offence.
Further he would submit that P.W.1 father of the victim girl died. The
appellant has to take care of the victim girl. Therefore, the Judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge had failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
consider the above fact. There is no offence committed under POCSO Act.
There is no forcible sexual penetration and that there was no injuries and
forcible sexual penetration . Therefore, the appellant’s conviction has to be
set aside.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that at
the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl was only 14 years. The
appellant had loved the victim girl. She was aged 14 years at that time.
Therefore, without knowing the consequences, she conceived. She also
subsequently intimated the same to her parents. She was admitted in the
hospital. She gave birth to a still born girl child. The hospital authorities
intimated it to the police and the respondent police registered the case and
investigated the matter. The respondent police also collected DNA Analysis
Report Ex.P.9. The DNA test report reveals that the appellant is the
biological father and therefore the prosecution has proved that the victim
girl was minor aged 14 years and the appellant had sexual intercourse with
the minor girl and the quick born baby was given birth by the victim girl
and the trial court, after going through the entire evidence, convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
appellant.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had fall on love
with the victim girl/P.W.2, who was aged 14 years. Parents of the victim
came to know the intimacy between the appellant and their daughter. The
victim girl became pregnant and so her parents came to the house of
Appellant and pleaded the appellant’s parents for marriage and left their
daughter in the house of the appellant. On 03.07.2015 the victim girl gave
birth to a still born female baby. The hospital authorities approached the
respondent police. The respondent police registered the case.
7. After investigation, respondent police laid the charge sheet. After
completing formalities, the trial court framed charge. During the trial, on the
side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
12 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. No material Object
was exhibited. After completing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses was
put before the appellant by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
which the accused denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the
side of defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence, the
victim has not completed the age of 18 years. From the evidence of P.W.1
to 12, it was clearly proved that the victim girl has not completed the age of
18 years. The doctor evidence is that the victim girl gave birth to a still born
child and the child in the womb was eight months old. The doctor who
conducted autopsy on the body of the female baby born, found the foetus
was within 6 to 8 months. P.W.11 Scientific Officer compared the DNA of
appellant and victim girl and the DNA of the still born child and found that
the victim girl was the biological mother of the still born baby and the
appellant is the biological father of the girl baby. The DNA report was
marked as Ex.P.9, which clearly proves that the appellant was the biological
father of the deceased baby. Therefore, the report shows that the appellant
had sexual intercourse with the victim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
9. The fact remains that on the date of occurrence, the victim girl was
minor and aged about 14 years. The Birth certificate for proof of age of the
minor girl obtained from school was marked as Ex.P.3 through Head
Master of the school where the victim girl studied. The school record of the
victim girl shows that her date of birth is 02.01.2000. The date of
occurrence was 01.05.2014. Therefore, at the time of the occurrence, the
victim girl was only 14 years. Therefore, it clearly shows that the appellant
had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and the victim girl gave birth to a
still born baby. The DNA report further shows that the victim girl gave birth
to quick born child on 03.07.2015. The age of the victim girl was 15 years at
that time. The DNA test report shows that the appellant is the biological
father of the said foetus. Therefore, it clearly shows that the victim girl was
below 16 years. The appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim girl.
Even though she has given consent and the parents know about the
pregnancy, the offence falls under the POCSO Act.
10. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 and the statement of the
victim girl also prove the offence committed by the appellant. The victim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
girl was also examined by Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C.,
statement also reveals that the appellant had penetrative sexual intercourse
with the victim girl. Therefore, a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 victim
girl and the evidence of P.W.7 doctor who examined the victim girl deposed
that the victim girl gave birth to a dead foetus. Further Ex.P.9 DNA report
clearly shows that appellant is the biological father of the quick born baby.
11. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, the
prosecution has clearly proved that the appellant had penetrative sexual
intercourse with the victim girl who is child under the definition of Section
2(1)(d) of POCSO Act and also the DNA test report would go to show that
the appellant is the biological father of the still born dead baby. The victim
girl who was examined before the Magistrate has stated that appellant had
penetrative sexual intercourse with her.
12. The Appellate court is a fact finding court for which it has to
re-appreciate the entire evidence. As such, this court perused the entire
records and gone through both oral and documentary evidence carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
13. A reading of the entire materials on record and the evidence of
P.W.1 victim girl, P.W.7, P.W.8 doctors evidence and the statement
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.3 school certificate and Ex.P.6
Post Mortem Report of the baby, Ex.P.9 DNA test report, this court finds
that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under section 6 of
POCSO Act. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and
convicted the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Mahila Court at Cuddalore
dated 08.01.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2016, is confirmed.
Index:Yes/No 18.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
nvsri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
To
1. The Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Panruti, Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
4.The Section Officer, Stationery Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
nvsri
Crl.A.No.343 of 2019
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
