Madras High Court
M.Ajith vs State Represented By on 12 November, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.549 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.549 of 2019
M.Ajith ... Appellant/Accused
-vs-
State Represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Neyveli Sub Division
Neyveli, Cuddalore District ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against
the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Cuddalore in Special Sessions Case No.51/2018 dated 21.12.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Raja
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
Crl.A.No.549 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
21.12.2018 in Special S.C.No.51 of 2018 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Cuddalore, the appellant / accused has filed the present
criminal appeal.
2. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as
follows:
Sl.No. Conviction Sentence
1. Section 366 IPC To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of five years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand
only), in default to pay fine, to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of
one year.
2 Section 6 of POCSO To undergo Imprisonment for life, with
Act read with Section fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Thousand only), in default to pay fine,
(POA) Act, 1989 as to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
amended by 2015 Act period of two years.
(Act 1 of 2016)
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
3. Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
3(i) the victim, aged 11 years, is a mentally retarded child and
daughter of PW1. PW1, who was working as a coolie, used to leave the
child with her father (PW4). On 20.07.2017, PW1 as usual went to coolie
work leaving the victim child with her father. At about 03.00p.m, when the
child was playing in front of the house, the accused took the child to the
nearby sugar cane field. PWs 2 and 3, on hearing the sound of the child,
rushed to the spot and found the child, who is mentally retarded, undressed
and the accused has concealed himself in the sugar cane field. PWs 2 and 3
caught hold of the accused and brought the accused and child and they
informed the occurrence to PW1, the mother of the child. PW1 also
rushed to the spot and the child has identified the accused.
3(ii) Immediately, PW1 lodged the complaint (Ex.P2) before PW9,
who has registered the First Information Report in Crime No.207 of 2017
under Sections 5(k) and 6 of POCSO Act under Ex.P6 and forwarded the
FIR to the Court and took up the investigation. Thereafter, PW9 went to the
place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) and Rough
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
Sketch (Ex.P7) and examined the witnesses and recorded the statement and
also sent the child to the hospital. PW7, the Medical Officer attached to the
Government Hospital, Cuddalore examined the child, the child complained
of pain in both thighs and her dresses were torn. According to psychiatrist,
the child has 70% mental disability. The Medical Officer also found scratch
marks on the forearm and arm. Though there were no external injuries on
genitalia and no seminal stains found on the cloths, tenderness is noted by
the Medical Officer on labia majora and issued Ex.P4 in this regard. PW8
(Dr.Kanagavel), the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital
examined the accused and conducted potency test and issued Ex.P5. PW10
(Tmt.Jansirani), who was working as Personal Assistant to District Supply
Officer in the Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore, issued the
Community Certificate under Ex.P10 to the victim and PW11, the Revenue
Tahsildar, issued Community Certificate to the accused stating that he
belongs to Most Backward Community. PW12 (Sub-Inspector of Police)
recorded further statement of the victim and finally arrested the accused,
completed the investigation and laid the final report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
4. In order to bring on the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has
examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents and 4
material objects.
5. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, found the accused
guilty of offences under Section 366 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012
read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, convicted the accused and
sentenced him as above. The trial Court mainly framed charges for offence
under Section 366 of IPC for taking the child to the sugar cane field from
the guardian, Section 6 of POCSO Act for committing aggravated
penetrative sexual assault and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as the victim
child belongs to Schedule Caste and the accused belongs to Most Backward
Caste, the offence committed by the accused has become an offence against
a member of the schedule caste. Challenging the said judgment, the accused
has filed the instant appeal.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
entire case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and the charge under
Section 6 of POCSO Act has not been made out as there is no penetrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
sexual assault on the victim even as per the evidence of PW7, the Medical
officer attached to Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore.
It is his further contention that even the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/SC Act has not been made out. According to the learned counsel, the
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is inconsistent and improved in every stage and
PW1's evidence is also contrary to her earlier statement in Ex.P1.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the child was
subjected to sexual assault, the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for
such a grave crime. It is submitted that the appellant / accused is also a
coolie worker and when he visited the sugar cane field, since he belong to
other community, he has been falsely implicated. Therefore, according to
learned counsel, the entire prosecution case is highly doubtful.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit
that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 clearly prove that the accused was seen in
the sugar cane field where the victim child was also seen undressed and
and the accused was caught red handed by PW2 and PW3 and the child has
also clearly pointed out the finger at the accused. The accused was
immediately taken to the police station. He would further submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
medical evidence also would clearly indicate that there is tenderness in
labia majora and scratch marks were also seen in the right arm and forearm
and this, in fact, substantiates the sexual assault on the victim, who is aged
about 11 years. As the victim is a mentally retarded child, the accused
taking advantage of the same, tried to entice the victim and therefore, his
act would certainly come within the definition of penetrative sexual assault.
8. Since the victim is a mentally retarded child, she was not in a
position to give rational answers,except repeating the name of the accused
and hence, her statement could not be recorded by the trial Court. The trial
Court also assessed the mental capacity.
9. Be that as it may, admittedly PW7, the Medical Officer who
examined the child at the earlier point of time, has deposed to the effect that
the child is suffering from mental retardation upto 70%. In such cases, the
Court cannot expect that statement of the child, who was subjected to
sexual assault, to be recorded and brought on record in every case. It is the
evidence of PWs 1 and 4 that the child, used to be with PW4 when PW1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
goes for regular coolie work. On the date of occurrence also i.e., on
20.07.2017, the child was left in the house of PW4, the father of PW1.
While so, when the child was playing in front of the house of PW4, the
accused enticed the child and took her to the nearby sugar cane field and
caused aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the child aged about 11
years. To substantiate these charges, PWs 2 and 3 in their evidence, has
stated that on hearing the cry of the child, when they rushed to the spot,
they found the child undressed and the child was pointing out towards the
accused and the accused was very much present in the place of occurrence
and in fact, the accused has concealed under the sugar cane, immediately
the accused was caught by PWs 2 and 3 and brought to the village. PWs 2
and 3 informed the occurrence to PW1, the mother of the victim child PW1
and thereafter, the accused was taken in an auto and handed over to the
police and PW1 has given Ex.P2 complaint. The law was set in motion on
the basis of Ex.P2 complaint and immediately, the investigation was
commenced by PW9 and the victim girl was produced before the Medical
Officer. The Medical Officer (PW7) has examined the victim, though there
was no evidence of seminal stains or other foreign bodies on the private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
parts, the dresses of the child were torn and there were scratch marks in the
forearm and tenderness is also noticed in labia majora. The child was, in
fact, rescued from sugar cane field by PWs 2 and 3 where the accused was
very much found. It is not the case of the accused that he never went to the
sugar cane field. During cross-examination, he has stated that he went to the
sugar cane field and on seeing the accused in the sugar cane field, the child
has become panic and started crying. It is relevant to note that there was no
need whatsoever for the child to go to the sugar cane field alone.
Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 cannot be
brushed aside and there was no motive whatsoever established for the false
implication of the accused.
10. Further, when the child was seen by PW2 and PW3, the child
was found undressed and the child was in fact standing alone and the
accused was found in the place of occurrence itself. Their evidence clearly
indicate that only the accused committed some act of sexual abuse on the
child, more so in the absence of any explanation as to how he happens to be
at the place of occurrence. There was no motive whatsoever established for
the implication of the accused by PW2 and PW3 and there was also no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
previous enmity between the accused and PW 2 or PW3 for singling out the
accused for such heinous crime.
11. It is to be noted that only suggestion put up by the accused is that
since the witnesses caste is inimical towards the accused caste, he has been
falsely implicated. Such contention in our view has no legs to stand
without any evidence in this regard. His presence in the place of
occurrence at the relevant point of time is also admitted. Admittedly, the
child was pointing out the finger at the accused and PWs 2 and 3 has no axe
to grind against the accused and they rushed to the spot only on hearing the
sound of the child and in fact, they found the victim's mouth gagged with
cloth. Therefore, their evidence clearly indicate that on seeing PWs 2 and
3, the accused ran away. These facts clearly establish the complicity of the
accused with the crime. We find that investigation proceeded in the right
direction and we do not see any infirmity in the investigation.
12. Admittedly, the child is below 12 years of age. Therefore, even
though it is the contention of the appellant that no penetrative sexual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
assault has been established, it is to be noted that to bring the person within
the ambit of penetrative sexual assault, it is sufficient for the prosecution to
establish the fact that any object or a part of the body, not being the penis,
is inserted into the vagina, urthera or anus of a child. Such act will certainly
constitute a penetrative sexual assault as per Section 3 of POCSO Act. The
very nature of the injuries and the tenderness found on the private part
makes it clear that in fact the accused has inserted a part of his body though
there is no direct evidence for inserting the penis, it has to be necessarily
held that a part of body or object was inserted which caused the tenderness
on the labia majora. Therefore, his act will definitely fall within the ambit
of penetrative sexual assault. As the child is below 12 years of age and is
also mentally retarded, the act of the accused causing penetrative sexual
assault would fall under the aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Therefore, we find that the accused is certainly punishable for the
aggravated sexual assault besides for enticing the child and removing the
child from the natural guardian. The charge under Section 366 IPC and
Section 6 of POCSO Act has been clearly established as against the
accused. Though the trial Court has also found the accused guilty of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, on a careful perusal of
the entire materials, we are of the view that the trial Court finding the guilt
of the accused under Section 3(2)(v) is not sustainable. Absolutely there is
no evidence on record to show that the entire offence itself purported only
on the ground of caste of the minor. The entire evidence projected by the
prosecution clearly shows that only on seeing the child, he took the child.
It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused is already aware of the
child's caste and he committed such offence knowing that the child belongs
to a particular community. Therefore, in our view the charge under Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out. Hence, the finding recorded
by the trial Court in this regard is liable to be set aside. However, the
finding recorded by the trial Court as far as the proof of charge under
Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO is upheld.
13. With regard to the punishment, as far as Section 366 of IPC is
concerned, we confirm the punishment. In respect of offence under Section
6 of POCSO Act is concerned, the trial Court has awarded life
imprisonment. It is to be noted that the period of life imprisonment was
introduced by Act 25 of 2019 with effect from 16.08.2019. Prior to that for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the punishment is imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than 10 years, which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also pay a fine whereas the trial Court
imposed life sentence. We are of the view that as the attempt has been
made only to penetrate, which resulted in tenderness and no semens were
found, though aggravated penetrative sexual assault has been made out, the
accused shall be punished for a period of 10 years in stead of life sentence.
Therefore, the trial court imposing life sentence for the offence under
Section 6 of POCSO Act is liable to be modified since the occurrence took
place prior to Act 25 of 2019.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction
rendered by the trial Court under judgment dated 21.12.2018 in Special
Session Case No.51 of 2018 for the offences under Section 366 of IPC for a
period of 5 years and for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act is
confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court
for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act is modified to 10 years of
rigorous imprisonment and the fine imposed by the trial Court is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
The conviction rendered by the trial Court under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act is set aside. The sentences shall run concurrently. The trial
Court shall take steps to secure the appellant to serve the remaining period
of sentence.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
12.11.2025
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
gpa
To:
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Cuddalore
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Neyveli Sub Division
Neyveli, Cuddalore District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
gpa
12.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 06:48:12 pm )
