Madras High Court
Sarathi vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 27 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.102 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.102 of 2023
Sarathi ... Appellant
Vs
State rep. by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirupur South,
Tiruppur District.
Crime No.9 of 2021 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned Session
Judge Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur in S.C.No.81
of 2021 dated 08.06.2022 and allow this Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vignesh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment
dated 08.06.2022 passed in S.C.No.81 of 2021 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was aged
about 11 years. While being so, on 17.07.2021, when the parents of the
victim had gone to work, the appellant came to her house at about
11.00a.m. and informed the victim that he is leaving out station and when
the victim questioned him as to the necessity of informing her, the
accused pushed her on the cot, lifted her nighty and thereafter, he
committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim. At that juncture, the
father of the victim knocked the door of the house and immediately, the
appellant went under the cot. Thereafter, the victim opened the door and
her father found the appellant under the cot. Immediately, he left the
house and the victim informed the incident to her mother and she, in turn
informed the incident to the Child Line for help. Thereafter, the Child
Line officer lodged a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the
respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.9 of 2021 for the offence
punishable u/s 5(m) read with 6 of POCSO Act. After completion of
investigation, a final report was filed before the Sessions Judge, Mahila
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur and same has been taken
cognizance in S.C.No.81 of 2020 for the offence punishable under
Section 9(m) read with 10 of POCSO Act.
3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined eight (8)
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8, marked eleven (11) documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P11. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no
document was marked.
4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Court found the appellant guilty, convicted for the offence under Section
9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years
Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo a further period of 6 months of Simple
Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has
been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
person, who had seen the alleged occurrence was not examined by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
prosecution, who is none other the father of the victim. Though the father
of the victim has seen the appellant under the cot, he did not take any
steps to caught hold him and lodge any complaint. He informed the said
incident to his wife and in turn informed to the Child Line for help.
Thereafter, the complaint was lodged before the respondent. Further, the
victim was subjected for medical examination and the doctor, who had
examined the victim girl was examined as P.W.4, who deposed that there
was no external injury found on the victim's private part and also there
was no evidence that the victim had sexual intercourse and her hymen
was intact. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charge as alleged against the appellant. That apart on the very same day,
one Madhi quaralled with the appellant for the reason that he was
informed about the love affair between the appellant and the victim girl.
Therefore, he also attacked the appellant and as such, he sustained
grievous injuries and immediately, was taken to hospital. On the said
complaint, the Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Tiruppur
District registered an FIR in Crime No.1176 of 2021 for the offence
punishable u/s 307 of IPC and it is pending for investigation. Therefore,
there was no such occurrence happened as alleged by the prosecution and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
in order to split the appellant from the victim, a false complaint has been
foisted as against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the victim girl was examined as P.W.1 and she categorically deposed that
on 17.07.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., the appellant came to her house and
had committed aggravated sexual assault on her. At that juncture, her
father knocked the door and immediately, he went under the cot.
Therefore, the victim herself had opened the door and his father also
found him and immediately, he went out of the house. Further, though
her hymen was intact as per the medical report, the appellant had
committed sexual harassment on the victim. Hence, the order of
conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police
and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
8. The specific case of the prosecution was that on 17.07.2021, the
appellant went to the house of the victim and committed aggravated
sexual assault on the victim girl. However, no charge for the offence for
house trespass. Even according to the prosecution, the appellant and the
victim fell in love. At the time of alleged occurrence, the father of the
victim knocked the door of the house and immediately, the victim herself
opened the door. When she was subjected for aggravated sexual assault,
she would not have opened the door. That apart, the father of the victim
girl went into the house and had seen the appellant who was hiding under
the cot. Even then, the father of the victim did not take any steps to catch
him. The prosecution also failed to examine the father of the victim girl,
who had seen the appellant inside the house that too, while he had
committed sexual assault on the victim girl. Further, the father of the
victim girl informed the said occurrence to his wife, namely the mother
of the victim. Even then, they did not take any steps to lodge any
complaint. However, the mother of the victim informed the said
occurrence to the Child Line for help and in turn, the Child Line officer
lodged a complaint before the respondent. After registration of FIR, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
victim girl was subjected for medical examination and she had also
appeared before the doctor, P.W.4. On examination, the P.W.4 found that
there was no injury on her entire body and there was injury on her
genetilia also. Further, she opined that the victim's hymen was intact and
she was not subjected for any sexual intercourse. P.W.4 issued medical
report and the same was marked as Ex.P.4. It is clear that there was no
evidence of sexual intercourse and vaginal swear or vaginal swab and
result awaited. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charge u/s 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act. At the worst, the charge u/s 7 r/w
8 of POCSO Act can be attracted as against the appellant, since
admittedly, the appellant fell in love with the victim and he was available
in the house of the victim on the date of occurrence. That apart, for the
said occurrence, one Madhi quaralled with the appellant and thereby, the
appellant sustained injuries and he was taken to hospital. For that, the
appellant lodged a complaint and the same got registered in Crime
No.1176 of 2021 of the offence u/s 307 IPC and it pending for
investigation. Therefore, the conviction and sentence u/s 9(m) r/w 10 of
POCSO cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
9. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court is
hereby set aside. However, the appellant is convicted for the offence u/s
7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, though the
suspension of sentence was ordered, the appellant did not even execute
surety till today. Therefore, the appellant is incarcerating imprisonment
from the date of judgment till today. While he was on remand, he had
incarcerated imprisonment for about six months. In view of the same, the
appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. The appellant is
set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other
case. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to him.
Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall stand discharged.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
27.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
sp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirupur South,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sp
27.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 02:30:01 pm )
