Madras High Court
Anand vs The Union Territory Of Puducherry on 21 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.701 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.701 of 2021
Anand
.. Appellant
Vs
The Union Territory of Puducherry
Rep by
The Station House Officer
D Nagar Police Station,
Puducherry,
(Crime No.23 of 2019)
.. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to set
aside the conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge,
Puducherry in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2020 dated 20.10.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Kripakaran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Alexandar
Government Advocate
[Puducherry]
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
Crl.A.No.701 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The appellant / accused, in Special No. 2 of 2020 convicted
by the trial Court by judgment dated 20.10.2021 for offence
punishable under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo three
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of six
months simple imprisonment, has filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, at the time of
occurrence, the victim girl / PW2 is a minor, aged about 16 years.
The victim was attending college and also doing part time job in
Auro Star Super Market, VVP Nagar, Puducherry. The appellant is
also employed there, wherein the appellant had compelled the
victim to have a love affair, which initially the victim refused, but
later, they developed liking towards each other.
3. On 01.02.2019, the victim girl had not returned home.
Hence, PW1/father of the victim had enquired with the employer /
PW6, who informed that his daughter complained of some
discomfort and left the shop at about 8 p.m. Thereafter, PW1 made
a search with other persons/relatives in the nearby vicinity. Unable
to trace his daughter, victim's father lodged a complaint with PW8,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
who received the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1 and
registered a case in Crime No. 23 of 2019 for the offence
punishable under Section 363 IPC for 'girl missing'.
4. In the meanwhile, the motorbike of the appellant was
found abandoned in front of PW6/shop, from which, copy of RC
book was taken out, address of the appellant was collected and an
enquiry was made with his parents, who informed that the
appellant had not returned home. PW1 informed his cousin about
missing of his daughter. PW4 and PW5 collected the address of the
appellant's family members and gone to Karaikal, where they found
the victim and the appellant and they were brought back home.
5. PW9, the Investigating Officer, who took the investigation,
prepared Ex.P4, the Crime Details Form, examined the victim in
presence of PW7, parents of victim and others, produced the victim
before the Magistrate for recording Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., statement,
marked as Ex.P2, recorded a finding that the victim is a minor; and
thereafter, an alteration report, including offence under Section 8 of
the POCSO Act filed and, after the conclusion of the investigation,
the charge-sheet was filed.
6. During trial, PW1 to PW9 were examined, Exs.P1 to P8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
were marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court acquitted the
accused / appellant herein for the offence under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act but convicted him for the offence under Section 363
IPC.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that, in this case, the victim, in her 164 statement / Ex.P2 and in
her evidence before the trial Court, clearly stated that she and
appellant were in love with each other and both had voluntarily left
the shop about 8 p.m., and had gone to Cuddalore and from there,
they proceeded to Mayiladuthurai. It is to be noted that 16kms
before Mayiladuthurai, they got down and they had gone to an old
lady’s house and informed that they missed the bus and stayed
there for a night and thereafter they had gone to Karaikal. The next
day, the appellant's brother informed about the police complaint,
PW4 and PW5 had gone there and thereafter, the victim girl handed
over to her parents. Thus, it is seen from the evidence of the victim
girl that, there was no abduction or inducement from the appellant.
Further, the victim girl joined him voluntarily and hence the offence
under Section 361 IPC would not arise.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in this
case, the victim had refused to undergo medical examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
Further, the victim had not stated about the appellant making any
physical touch on her and hence the trial Court had acquitted the
appellant and sentenced him for the offence under the POCSO Act.
He further submitted that, the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5
and PW6 are contradictory to each other. PW1 gives exaggerated
version stating that when he went in search of his daughter, he
enquired the appellant's wife and came to know that the appellant
was also found missing. In his evidence, PW4 informed that he had
gone to the house of the appellant, enquired the details of the
appellant and does not whisper anything about the appellant's wife.
9. Further, in this case, PW5’s evidence is that appellant's
parents informed that the appellant would have gone to his
grandmother's place at Karaikal. The evidence of PW5 is that the
appellant and the victim had come to Karaikal bus stand, from
there the victim had gone to her parents house.
10. On the other hand, the evidence of PW5 is that when
appellant, victim, PW4 and PW5 were travelling from Karaikal to
Puducherry, on the way, the parents of the victim came in a car and
they had taken the victim with them. Thus, there have been vital
contradictions in the evidence adduced. But one thing is certain
that there is no forcible abduction or inducement by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on the following decisions:-
(i)Rajesh @ Karuppusamy v The State, Rep.
By Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Palladam, Coimbatore District
[Crl.A.No.387 of 2009 dated 17.12.2018];
(ii) Vijayakumar v State, rep. By Inspector of
Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal
District [Crl.A.No. 635 of 2018 dated
27.06.2019]; and
(iii) R.Gokul v The State, Rep. By the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Namakkal A WPS,
Namakkal District [Crl.A.No.104 of 2021 dated
04.03.2021].
11. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that, at the time of incident, victim was a minor, is not
in dispute. The date of birth of the victim is 08.02.2002, which is
proved by Ex.P7 / birth certificate. The victim's father / PW1,
finding that his daughter not returned home after the work, had
called the PW6/employer and enquired about his daughter, who
informed that at about 8 pm, she had left the workplace,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
complaining of illness. Thereafter, PW1 made a search for her and
finds that his daughter is missing, lodged a complaint with PW8,
who registered the case for 'girl missing' in Crime No. 23 of 2019 /
Ex.P5.
12. Learned Government Advocate would further submit that
PW4 was informed about the missing of the victim. PW4 along with
PW5 gone to the house of the appellant, enquired the parents and
was informed by them that the appellant might have gone to his
grandmother's place at Karaikal. Thereafter, PW4 gone to Karaikal,
the appellant and the victim were traced and they were brought
back and thereafter, the victim had joined her parents.
13. In the present case, the statement of victim was recorded
as PW7 and the victim was produced before the Magistrate and
gave 161 statement / Ex.P2 and Crime Details Form / Exs.P3 and
P4, prepared, finding that the victim is a minor girl and she had
been forcibly abducted by the appellant and upon conclusion of the
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
14. Before trial Court, PW1, PW3, parents of the victim, PW2
the victim, PW4 and PW5, cousins of PW1 and PW6, employer of
the victim all supported the case of the prosecution. It is not in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
dispute that that the victim was found missing from 02.01.2019
and, thereafter, she had been found in Karaikal. PW2, the victim in
her 161 statement and in her evidence before Magistrate confirms
that she was with the appellant during the missing period. The trial
Court finding that there is no case of POCSO, charged him for the
offence of abduction of minor girl. In support of his contention,
learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgment in the
case of Prakash v State of Haryana reported in (2004) 1 CC 339.
15. Considering the submissions made and based on the
materials, it is seen that, in this case, the victim / PW2 is a minor,
at the time of incident, is not in dispute. The victim and the
appellant were employed in the shop of PW6 as Saleswoman and
Salesman. On 01.02.2019, the victim had informed her employer
that she was not feeling well and left the shop even before the
closing hours. The victim father / PW1 finding that his daughter
had not returned home, enquired PW6 and later came to know that
both the victim and the appellant were found missing; PW1 lodged
a complaint for 'girl missing' with PW8.
16. The case projected by the prosecution is that motorbike
of the appellant was found abandoned in front of the shop and from
that, the address of the appellant was found, enquiry made and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
later PW4, PW5 travelled to Karaikal and from where, the victim
and the appellant were found.
17. From the submission of PW2, both in her 161 Statement
and before the trial Court, it is seen that the victim narrates both
herself and the appellant had gone to Puducherry by bus, from
there to Cuddalore and from there to Mayiladuthurai. On the way,
16 kms before reaching Mayiladuthurai, both got down and stayed
for a night in a old lady's house and thereafter, they had gone to
Karaikal. From her narration of entire travelling and the stay at
Karaikal, it is seen that, there was no inducement or forcible
abduction by the appellant. Further, the love affair between the
victim and the appellant, is not seriously disputed.
18. Though, the learned Government Advocate submits that
the appellant is a married man and on a false promise of marriage,
he had abducted the victim girl, marriage is highly doubtful for the
reason that PW1 in his evidence states that he went to the house of
the appellant, where he met the appellant's parents. On the other
hand, PW5 confirms that he went to the appellant's house and
enquired appellant parents. Nothing about meeting appellant wife.
19. Likewise, the origination of the case against the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
is that he had abandoned the bike in front of the shop. In this case,
the bike has not seized and not marked before the trial Court.
Likewise, the confession of the accused / appellant is also not
produced as document. The entire narration of the events by the
victim / PW2, PW4 and PW5 confirms that, there is no forcible
inducement or abduction by the appellant. The voluntary love affair
confirmed by PW2. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to
set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting
aside the judgment of the trial Court, dated 20.10.2021 in Spl.
S.C.No. 2 of 2020. No costs. The appellant/accused is acquitted of
all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond, if any,
executed shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid, shall be
refunded to him.
21.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
To
1.The Station House Officer,
The Union Territory of Puducherry,
D Nagar Police Station,
Puducherry,
2.The Special Judge,
Puducherry.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
ssm
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:36 pm )
