Madras High Court
Vinoth vs The State Rep. By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A(MD)No.365 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 04.03.2025
Pronounced on : 28.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.365 of 2021
Vinoth ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Muthaiahpuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ...Respondent/Complainant
(Cr.No.116 of 2016)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected to the Judgment
in Spl.S.C.No.186 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi dated 17.03.2021 and set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
1/18
Crl.A(MD)No.365 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srikanth
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and
sentence passed against the appellant/Sole Accused in the judgment
dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi in Spl.S.C.No186 of 2019 by
convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 366(A), 493 of IPC and Under Section 5(1) r/w.6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the
offences punishable under Section 366(A) of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigourous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months
for the offence U/s.493 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s.5(1) r/w.6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The complainant is a resident of Muthaiapuram,
Kumaraswamy Nagar, Thoothukudi District. The victim girl ‘V’ is the
second daughter of the complainant. At the time of occurrence, she was
16 years old and studying 12th Standard in M.Thangammalpuram
Government Higher Secondary School at Muthiapuram.
(b) Ten days before the incident, he had received intimation
that his daughter was speaking with a boy in front of her school.
Therefore, he informed the same to his wife and then stopped her
daughter from school.
(c) On 01.03.2016, he and his wife went to work, while his
mother and his daughter (victim girl) stayed at home. At about 9.00 a.m.,
his daughter was about to leave the house with her laptop, when his
mother asked where she was going. In response, his daughter said she
was going to her friend's house to download songs into her laptop and
left the house. But, she did not turn back till 2.00 p.m. Immediately, the
complainant's mother informed him over the phone. He returned from
Tenaksi and enquired at nearby houses, but his daughter was missing. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
complained with a prayer to trace out his daughter.
(d) The complaint Ex.P.1 was received by P.W.13
Mr.Chettainathan, Sub Inspector of Police, Muthaiapuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District and he registered the FIRunder Ex.P.9 in Crime
No.116 of 2016 for “Girl Missing” and sent the original FIR to the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi and placed a copy to the
Inspector of Police for reference and other copies were sent to the higher
officials for further action.
(e) P.W.16 Thiru.Sundar Raju, Inspector of Police, after
receipt of the FIR took up the case for investigation. On 02.03.2016, at
about 00.30 hours, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared
Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.4, Rough Sketch-Ex.P.5, examined witnesses
Mr.Sekar, Mr.Kasi and other witnesses and recorded their statements.
(f) To trace out the minor girl, a team was formed under the
leadership of Mrs.Jothilakhsmi, Sub Inspector of Police. On 06.03.2016
at about 05.00p.m., she brought the victim and the accused from
Thoothukudi Bus Stand. The statement of the minor victim girl was
recorded and altered the section of law from “Girl Missing” to under
section 366(A) of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
prepared the Section Alteration Report under Ex.P.11.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
(g) Thereafter, the victim girl was kept in the All Women
Police Station along with her mother. She was produced before the Fast
Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi on 07.03.2016. The accused was
arrested on 06.03.2016 at about 07.00p.m. and sent for remand.
(h) P.W.6 Mrs.Sagayarani, Women Constable-603,
produced the victim girl before the Fast Track Manila Court and she was
placed in a Children's Home on 07.03.2016.
(i) On 08.03.2016, the victim girl was taken from the
children's home and produced before P.W.11, Dr.Muthulakshmi for
medical examination.
(j) P.W.11, Dr.Muthulakshmi examined the victim girl. On
enquiry, the victim girl informed her that she had sexual contact with a
known person. On examination, she found no evidence of external
injuries or internal injuries over the genitals. Hymen ruptured Vegina not
intact, admits two fingers. Upon urine test, found that she was not
pregnant, and she was not affected with HIV or any other disease. The
Medical examination report was received on 09.03.2016 under Ex.P.7.
(k) P.W.16, Thiru. Sundarraj, Inspector of Police, on
10.03.2016 sent the case files for further investigation to the All Women
Police Station. P.W.17 Tmt.Prema, the Inspector of Police received the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
file and took up the case for further investigation. She went to the house
of the complainant and examined the witnesses, police officials and Dr
Mutulakshmi and recorded their statements.
(l) On 25.05.2016, she sent the accused for medical
examination. The accused was examined by Dr.Mathanpandian, P.W.12
on 28.03.2016 at about 10.15 a.m. On examination, he opined that there
is nothing to state that he is impotent.
(m) P.W.17 examined Dr.Mathanpandian and Dr.Gajendra
Varathan, Assistant Director of the Forensic Department. The smear of
the victim girl was sent to the chemical analysis and after receipt of the
report, she examined the Assistant Director and recorded his statement.
She also received a birth certificate of the victim girl under Ex.P.10
issued by the Sub-Registrar in which her date of birth was mentioned as
06.06.1999. She also examined the PW 15, Thiru. Dhaneshkumar, the
registrar recorded his statement.
(n) After completing the investigation, she filed a final
report against the accused on 23.06.2016 for the offence under Sections
366 and 493 of IPC and Section 5(1) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. On receipt of the records, the Special Court for Exclusive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
Trial of cases under the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, took up the case in
Spl. S.C.No.186 of 2019 and issued summons to the accused. After the
appearance of the accused, copies of the entire records were furnished to
him free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing the public prosecutor and the defence
counsel, the learned Session Judge framed charges against the accused
under Sections 366 and 493 of IPC and Section 5(1) r/w. 6 of the POCSO
Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The
accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case
was posted for trial.
5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 were
examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. No Material Objects were
produced. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no
document was marked.
6. After a full trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 493 of IPC and under
Section 5(1) r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section
366(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months for the offence U/s.493 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for
the offence u/s.5(1) r/w.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed on
the following among other grounds:-
a) That the trial Court failed to consider the facts and the
circumstances of the case wherein the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in this case.
b) That the trial Court failed to note that the facts and
circumstances of this case convicting the appellant under Sections 366
(A), 493 of IPC. and Section 5 (1) r/w. 6 of Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not at all acceptable one and the trial Court
had not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution as well as the
defence side witnesses and convicting the appellant on violating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
principles of natural justice.
c) That the trial Court failed to note that P.W.2 is none other than
the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.4. The alleged occurrence is shown to
have taken place on 01.03.2016 and subsequent dates, but in the F.I.R
Ex.P9 would show that there was not mentioned the averments of
aggravated penetrative sexual offence, which had been alleged to have
committed by the accused. Because of the above-mentioned case,
enormous doubt concerning the prosecution case.
d) That the trial Court failed to note that the cross-examination of
PW1 mentioned that the appellant and the victim girl had an affair and
consent of the victim girl, she went along with the appellant. Even now,
the victim girl got married and the appellant was also married. Hence, the
facts and circumstances of the case that the conviction against the
appellant is disproportionate.
e) That the trial Court failed to note that the prosecution had not
proved the offences against the appellant without any reasonable doubt
and the benefit of the doubt was not granted in favour of the accused.
Hence, he prayed to set aside the judgement of the trial Court and
to acquit the accused from all charges.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
the State argued that the victim girl who is a minor was kidnapped by the
accused. He tied thali in a Temple after knowing that the marriage was
not a valid one, made the child believe that it was a lawful wedlock and
had sexual intercourse with her. He also took her to various places and
continuously had sexual contact. The victim spoke about the same before
the learned Judicial Magistrate when her statement was recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also before the Court. The victim’s evidence
was supported by medical evidence and other witnesses. The judgement
of the trial court is proper, and there is no valid ground in this Criminal
Appeal, and pray to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
9. Now this court has to decide whether the judgement
rendered by the trial Court is proper or liable to be set aside.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
Victim in her statement before the trial Court stated that she had a love
affair with the accused for the past six months, it was known to her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
parents. Parents want to stop her education. Therefore, she eloped with
the accused on her own accord. He has not kidnapped her, against her
wish. The allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. A
false case has been foisted against him and hence, the judgment is liable
to be set aside.
11. As per the birth certificate of the victim girl issued by the
Sub-Registrar, Thisayanvizhai dated 22.07.2016, at the time of
occurrence, the age of the minor girl was 16 years, eight months and 24
days.
12. In her evidence before the trial Court, she categorically
stated that on 01.03.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused called her over
the phone and asked her to come to Nahar bus stand. She left the house
and went with him to Tirunelveli and Madurai. He took her to
Meenakshi Temple and tied a thali. Thereafter, they went to Theni and
stayed at his uncle’s house. On that day, he had sexual intercourse with
her. They stayed for four days, the accused continuously had sexual
intercourse with her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
13. Her evidence was supported by medical evidence
Dr.Muthulakshmi who had examined the victim girl on 08.03.2016,
issued an accident register under Ex.P7. In the certificate, it was
mentioned that the victim girl informed her that she had sexual contact
with a known person. Her hymen ruptured, and Vigina was not intact.
The accused did not seriously deny the offence but put forth the
argument that sexual activity with a minor by the accused is consensual
sexual intercourse and does not fall under Section 5 (l) of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
14. To protect minor children from exploitation, abuse, and
potential harm in India Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act,
2012 was introduced. The Act set the age for consent at 18 years. One
should understand that consent for a minor girl's sexual intercourse under
the age of 18 years is considered statutory rape and is punishable under
law. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant is unsustainable.
15. It is proved that the accused, who was aged about 20
years, at the time of occurrence, took her from the lawful custody of her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
parents to Tirunelveli, Madurai and Theni and thereby, committed the
offence under section 366 IPC. He tied a thali made her believe that it
was a valid marriage after knowing fully well that she had not attained
the legal age of marriage and continuously had sexual intercourse with
her, and thereby committed the offence under Section 493 IPC and
section 5(l) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution therefore, proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous for one year for the offence
under section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act.
17. Certain amendments were introduced in the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 during the year 2019. Before
the amendment Section 6 the above Act reads as under :
“6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative
sexual assault.—
Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative
sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine.”
which was substituted by Act 25 of 2019; w.e.f 16.8,2019 and reads as
under :
“6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault.—
(1) Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual
assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which
may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that
person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.”
18. In the case at hand, the occurrence took place on
01.03.2016, before the amendment. The learned trial Court convicted the
accused under Section 6 of the post amended Act, however, the accused
ought to have been convicted under Section 6 of the old Act.
19. In the amended Act, it is not stated that the amendment
introduced operates as retrospective. The general principle of criminal
law is that unless explicitly stated, penal provisions are not applied
retrospectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
20. This Court after giving anxious consideration to the
above submission and taking into consideration the age of the accused
and his family situation, we modify the sentence imposed by the Trial
Court as below :
(i) The sentence imposed by the trial Court stands modified
from life imprisonment to rigourous imprisonment for a term of ten years
with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo 6
months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5(l) r/w. 6
of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. For other
offences, the punishment imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
21. In the result,
(i) this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) the conviction under Sections 366(A), 493 IPC and
Section 5(1) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act,
Thoothukudi , dated 17.03.2021, in Spl.S.C.No.186 of 2019 is confirmed
but the sentence in Section 5(1) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is modified;
(iii) Accordingly, the sentence of Life Imprisonment passed
by the Court below is set aside and the appellant is sentenced to undergo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default to pay the fine
amount, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months;
(iv) Insofar as the conviction and sentence for the offence
under Sections 366(A), 493 I.P.C. is concerned, the order of the Trial
stands confirmed.
(v) Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(vi) Suspension of sentence granted by this Court, on
22.09.2021 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6431 of 2021, stands cancelled.
(vii) Since the appellant / accused is on bail, it is directed
that the trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and commit
him to the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
(viii) The period of sentence already undergone by the
appellant / accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
28.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
GVN/RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Muthaiahpuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
ER/VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment in
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 11:27:38 am )
