Madras High Court
Chellappan vs The State Rep By on 16 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No. 227 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.227 of 2024 &
Crl.M.P.No.11070 of 2025
Chellappan ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Ammapettai,
Salem District
(Crime No.9 of 2019) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the entire records in connection with Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2020 dated
06.06.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special POCSO
Court, Salem, Salem District and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment passed in
Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2020 dated 06.06.2022 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Special POCSO Court, Salem District thereby convicting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, [for brevity,
hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act] and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim is residing four
houses next to the house of the appellant. The victim was friend and
playmate to one Meena, who is none other than the sister-in-law of the
appellant and therefore, the appellant was known to the victim and her
family members. While being so, on 23.04.2019, at about 1.00 P.M.,
when the appellant saw the victim going to the neighbour's house to get
cool water, he called the victim into his house with an intention to cause
sexual assault on her. Thereafter, the victim was taken to the accused
house and the accused removed her clothes and made her nude and
committed aggravate penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. The
appellant also threatened the victim not to disclose the same to anybody.
On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent
registered FIR in Crime No.9 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the
trial court in Spl.SC.No.18 of 2020.
3. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to
P.W.12 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P.22. The prosecution also
produced material objects i.e. M.O.1. On the side of the appellant, no one
was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the
offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the trial court convicted the appellant on the basis of
inconsistent evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The victim girl was examined
as P.W.2, her mother was examined as P.W.1 and victim girl's father was
examined as P.W.3. The Doctor, who examined the victim deposed as
P.W.8, even according to the Doctor, there were no symptoms of
penetrative sexual assault on the victim in the hands of the appellant. The
learned counsel also relied upon the statement recorded under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
164 of Cr.P.C., and indicated that there was no allegation of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault. Further, the alleged occurrence took place on
23.04.2019, however, the trial court convicted the appellant on the basis
of the Amended Act, which came into effect from 16.08.2019.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent/police submitted that the victim girl was
aged about only 12 years on the date of occurrence. When the victim girl
was proceeding to get cold drinking water from her sister's house, which
is situated four house next to her house and on crossing the appellant
house, he pulled her hands into his house, after closing her mouth by
cloths tied both her legs and hands and removed her dress and he had
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Immediately, P.W.2, the
victim was subjected for medical examination and the Doctor, opined that
the victim girl suffered penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, the trial
court convicted the appellant and does not warrant any interference from
this Court, thereby pleaded to dismiss the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the material placed before this Court.
7. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2019 at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
about 1.00 P.M., when the victim girl was going to get water from her
sister's house, which is situated four houses after her house, while
crossing the appellant's house, she was pulled by the appellant into his
house and the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault on her.
However, it was not even disclosed to her parents, namely, P.W.1 and
P.W.3. The own sister's daughter of the appellant is a close friend and
playmate of the victim. While there was misunderstanding between them,
immediately, the victim informed the said alleged occurrence to her
mother on 27.04.2019 and on the same day, the complaint was lodged by
P.W.2. However, on perusal of typed deposition of witnesses P.W.1 to 3,
there was absolutely no explanation for the delay in the lodgment of
complaint. When the victim girl suffered aggravated penetrative sexual
assault that too at the age of 12 years, she would have suffered not only
physically but also mentally. After registration of FIR, the victim girl was
subjected for medical examination before P.W.8. On examination, P.W.8
found that there was no external injury and there was also no injury on
her private parts and her hymen was intact. Further, no sperm was found
in the swab test and finally P.W.8 opined that victim girl was not
subjected to any sexual intercourse.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
8. That apart, the investigation report with regard to sexual offence
of the victim was marked as Ex.P.13 and the visera report was marked as
Ex.P.14, forensic science report was marked as Ex.P.15 and the final
opinion was marked as Ex.P.16 and all the said documents would reveal
that the victim girl was not subjected to any sexual intercourse and there
was no finding of any sperm.
9. Also the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., of the
victim was marked as Ex.P.3. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the
appellant pulled the victim hand and misbehaved with the victim with an
intention to involve in sexual intercourse. The victim, immediately
shouted and there was a sound of knocking at the door and immediately
the victim jumped towards the compound wall and came out of the
appellant's house. Therefore, even according to the victim, there was no
aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant.
However, there was some misbehavior by the appellant, therefore, the
prosecution has made out a case of the offence punishable under Sections
7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and the prosecution failed to prove the charge
under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
10. It is pertinent to note that even according to the case of the
prosecution, the alleged occurrence was taken place on 23.04.2019, i.e.,
before the date of amendment of the POCSO Act and the amendment
came into force from 16.08.2019. Also, the prosecution charged offence
under Section 506(i) of IPC and since the prosecution failed to prove the
same, the appellant was acquitted for charge under Section 506(i) of IPC.
The sentence of 20 years of imprisonment for offence under Section 5(m)
r/w 6 of POCSO Act that was imposed by the trial court, cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellant under Sections 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, in Special
S.C.No.18 of 2020 dated 06.06.2022, on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Special POCSO Court, Salem, is hereby modified. The appellant
is convicted for the offences under Sections 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act
and the sentence imposed on him is modified to the period of
incarceration which was already undergone by the appellant. So far, the
petitioner is incarcerated from the date of Judgment viz., 06.06.2022 till
today. Therefore, the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless his custody is otherwise required in connection with any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.
12. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal stands
partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
ssd
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Special POCSO Court, Salem,
Salem District.
2. The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, Ammapettai,
Salem District
(Crime No.9 of 2019)
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ssd
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 11:25:01 am )
