Madras High Court
Johny @ Anbudoss vs State Rep. By on 18 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
Crl.A.No.566 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 03.04.2025
Pronounced on 18.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
Crl.A.No.566 of 2019
Johny @ Anbudoss ... Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Killai Police Station,
Cuddalore.
(Crime No.120 of 2014) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973,
praying to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the learned
Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.40 of 2019 dated 26.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Rajavelu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
Crl.A.No.566 of 2019
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, through his
judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2019 has convicted
and sentenced the appellant/sole accused as follows:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 364 of IPC 7 years rigourous
imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo 1 year simple
imprisonment;
Under Section 302 of IPC Rigourous imprisonment
Accused for life and a fine of
Rs.50,000/- in default to
undergo 2 years simple
imprisonment;
Under Section 201 r/w. 5 years rigourous
302 of IPC imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo 6 months simple
imprisonment;
Under Section 6 of Rigourous imprisonment
POCSO Act, 2012 for life and a fine of
Rs.25,000/- in default to
undergo 2 years simple
imprisonment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
2. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
on 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
and 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
accused 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
(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).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
According 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
items.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
IPC. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
marked 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
have 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
11. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
13. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
15. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
four 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
witness 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
19. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
b) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
objection, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
to 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
accused 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
chain 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
by 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: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
Sni
Note: Issue Order Copy on 19.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Sni
To
1.The Mahila Court, Cuddalore
2.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 in
18.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 07:52:52 pm )
