Madras High Court

Nagamuthu vs The Inspector Of Police on 10 September, 2025

Author: M.Nirmal Kumar

Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar

                                                                                                 Crl.A.No.71 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                            RESERVED ON   : 29.04.2025
                                            PRONOUNCED ON : 10.09.2025

                                                                 CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                                       Crl.A.No.71 of 2022


                     Nagamuthu                                                             ... Appellant

                                                                    Vs.

                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Podhanur Police Station,
                     Coimbatore.
                     (Crime No.551 of 2019)                                                ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for
                     the records and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
                     Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore
                     by judgment dated 29.11.2021 in Spl.C.C.No,47 of 2020 and acquit the
                     appellant/accused from the offence under Section 5(1)(i)(ii) of POCSO Act.

                                       For Appellant         :        Mr.T.N.Murali Moghan

                                       For Respondent        :        Mr.L.Baskaran
                                                                      Government Advocate (Crl. Side)



                     Page No.1 of 17




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
                                                                                             Crl.A.No.71 of 2022




                                                              JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal filed to set aside the impugned judgment in

Spl.C.C.No,47 of 2020 dated 29.11.2021 by the file of the learned Sessions

Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,

Coimbatore.

2.The appellant/accused in Spl.C.C.No,47 of 2020 was convicted by

the Trial Court by judgment dated 29.11.2021 and sentenced him to undergo

twenty years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in

default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under

section 5(1)(j)(ii) r/w. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the defacto

complainant/P.W.1 as compensation.

3.The brief facts of the case is that the victim, a minor girl born on

09.03.2001, not completed 18 years of age, residing with her mother and

two brothers. Her father died nine years before. When the victim girl was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

studying 10th Standard and when she was alone at her home, the appellant, a

neighbour developed friendship with her and used to visit her. Taking

advantage of the loneliness, the appellant used to be very close with her.

On 15.08.2018 at about 2.00 p.m., when the victim girl was alone at her

house, the appellant came to the house of the victim, undressed her, when

the victim girl got scared and resisted, he promised her that he would marry

her and compelled the victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault.

Thereafter, the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on several

occasions. The victim girl after some months missed her periods and was

also looking sick. Her mother took the victim girl to the Hospital where

victim found to be pregnant. When the appellant was approached, he

initially refused but later both the families agreed and marriage was held

between the appellant and the victim girl on 05.02.2019 at Puliyankulam,

Mariamman Temple. After marriage, when the victim girl went to the

appellant's house, the appellant, his mother and his family members abused

the victim girl and questioned her morality. Thereafter the victim girl was

chased out of the matrimonial home. The victim girl came to her house on

10.02.2019, the appellant never visited her. On 24.04.2019, the victim girl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

gave birth to a female baby in Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital.

The appellant and her family members not visited the victim girl and the

new born baby. When the victim girl and her mother questioned the same,

the appellant and his family members doubting the paternity of the child and

abused the victim girl. Later, a complaint was lodged to the respondent

police and thereafter to the District Collector and a case registered,

statement of the victim girl and her family members recorded. The

appellant/accused was arrested. Thereafter, DNA test conducted on the

appellant, victim girl and the new born baby and the DNA report confirmed

the appellant's paternity to the child. On completion of investigation,

charge sheet filed in this case. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.5 examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the

defence, the appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D1. On

conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a

matrimonial discord between the appellant and his wife/P.W.1 was

projected as though the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

the victim taking advantage of the victim age who was short of few months

to attain majority but delivered a baby. It is not in dispute that both the

appellant and the victim girl hail from similar social status, had love affair

between them. Initially their relationship was not known to anyone and

they also had physical relationship. The victim girl became pregnant, the

appellant and the victim got married in the presence of relatives, family

members and others in Puliyankulam, Mariamman Temple on 05.02.2019.

On the same day, the victim came to the house of the appellant and they

were living as husband and wife happily. Since it was a new environment,

some matrimonial discord arose, the victim went to her parents house and

thereafter, she got admitted in the Hospital for delivery. The delivery of the

baby not informed and hence, the appellant not visited her. The baby was

born on 24.04.2019. Having this in the back of mind, the victim and her

family members started to abuse the appellant, complaining that appellant

not taken any care to the victim and the new born, the difference got

widened and no reconciliation steps taken. Thereafter, complaint was

lodged. He further submitted that in this case, the victim/P.W.1, her

mother/P.W.2 and brother/P.W.3 not supported the prosecution case, on the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

other hand all confirmed the husband and wife relationship between the

appellant and the victim, the other witnesses are P.W.4 and

P.W.5/Investigating Officers. No other witnesses examined in this case.

The victim had given reason how she was forced and pressurized by Police

to implicate the appellant when she was examined by the Doctor and by the

Magistrate, her signature alone marked as Ex.P2 in the 164 statement,

further no medical records for forceful penetrative sexual assault produced,

almost all exhibits marked through the Investigating Officer and not by the

author of the documents. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1, admits

the marriage, relationship between the appellant and the victim and the

birth of the female baby. The marriage between the appellant and the victim

girl got registered on 13.10.2021 before the Marriage Registrar, Singanallur

and the same marked as Ex.D1. Now the appellant, victim girl/P.W.1 along

with their daughter Ramya are living happily. He further submitted that the

appellant is a Painter, he is the sole breadwinner for the family, now P.W.1

is pregnant for the second time and he has to take care of his wife, children

and aged mothers. If the conviction is sustained, it will be doing more harm

than good to the victim and to her children. In similar circumstances,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

considering the welfare of the victim and the children and peaceful

harmonious matrimonial life, the Apex Court set aside the conviction in the

case of K.Dhandapani vs. The State by the Inspector of Police reported in

2022 SCC Online SC 1056

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that in this

case the defacto complainant is the victim girl who lodged a complaint to

the respondent Police on 02.07.2019 complaining that the appellant is

known to her, who is from her neighbourhood and they were having a love

affair. When the victim girl was studying 10th Standard and when she was

alone in her house on 15.08.2018 the appellant came to her house, forcibly

undressed her and when she resisted, on the promise of marriage he

committed penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter, he continued the act on

several occasions. The defacto complainant became pregnant and she was

not with good health. The victim girl's mother/P.W.2 took the victim girl to

the Hospital where it was found that the victim was pregnant. When P.W.2

questioned the victim girl, she disclosed, appellant committing penetrative

sexual assault. Thereafter, both the families came to an understanding and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

marriage was held between the appellant and the victim girl on 05.02.2019

at Puliyankulam Mariamman Temple. Few days thereafter on 10.02.2019

the victim girl was chased out of the matrimonial home and no one from the

appellant's family visited her. Even when the victim girl delivered a baby

girl on 24.04.2019, no one visited her and enquired about her health. In fact

when the defacto complainant went to the house of the appellant and

questioned the appellant and his mother on 01.07.2019 for not showering

love and affection and taking care of the victim and the new born baby, at

that time, she was abused and paternity of the baby questioned. Thereafter,

the victim girl lodged a complaint to the respondent police.

P.W.4/Inspector of Police (Incharge) received a complaint, registered FIR,

visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of victim girl, her

mother, brother and others. Observation mahazar and rough sketch

prepared in the presence of witnesses. On getting information about the

appellant, he was arrested and on his arrest, confession recorded. The

victim and the appellant sent for medical examination. 164 Cr.P.C.

statement of the victim girl recorded on 23.07.2019. Since there was doubt

in paternity, the appellant, victim girl and girl baby, all were subjected to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

DNA test and the DNA report/Ex.P10 confirmed the paternity of the

appellant. In this case, the defacto complainant/victim was examined as

P.W.1, mother and brother of the victim, examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The

Inspector of Police who initially registered FIR, conducted initial part of

investigation as P.W.4 and the regular Inspector of Police as P.W.5, who

continued the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected

documents and medical records, filed a final report in this case. During

trial, P.W.1 to P.W.5 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 marked on the side of

the prosecution and on the side of the defence, the appellant examined

himself as D.W.1 and Ex.D1/marriage certificate marked. The learned

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that in this case P.W.1

to P.W.3, namely, the victim, her mother and her brother all not supported

the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. The Trial Court finding

that the victim girl date of birth is 09.03.2001 as per her birth

certificate/Ex.P3 and the DNA report/Ex.P10 confirmed the appellant is the

reason for victim pregnancy and delivering of the baby, convicted the

appellant. Hence prayed for dismissal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,

it is seen that in this case, the defacto complainant is the wife of the

appellant. The appellant and the defacto complainant/victim had love affair

and they both hail from same locality having similar social background

without any disparity. Out of the love affair at their teens, both appellant

and the victim had physical relationship and the victim became pregnant.

Initially the appellant showed some resistance and later he married the

victim in Puliyankulam, Mariamman Temple on 05.02.2019. There was

some matrimonial discord, the victim went to her parents house and the

appellant not visited her. Further, the victim girl gave birth to a female

child on 24.04.2019 but thereafter to, the appellant not visited his wife and

baby. On 01.07.2019 the victim came to the house of the appellant and

questioned the appellant and his mother for not showing any interest in the

child, not showering any love and affection and not enquiring about the

health and wellness of the defacto complainant and the baby. At that time,

the appellant used some intemperate words and also questioned the

paternity of the child which further manifested the matrimonial discord and

a complaint lodged to the respondent police, who registered a case,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

completed investigation and filed charge sheet. Later, the matrimonial

discord between the appellant and the defacto complainant got resolved and

they are living happily as husband and wife. No doubt the victim was few

months short of attaining majority when she became pregnant. The

appellant examined himself as D.W.1, confirmed the relationship and also

produced the marriage registration certificate/Ex.D1. P.W.1 to P.W.3

confirmed the marriage between the appellant and the defacto complainant

and the birth of the girl baby. Now the appellant and the defacto

complainant are living happily as husband and wife. The birth certificate of

the baby produced, in which, the appellant's name is registered as father of

the baby.

7.Further, to confirm the present status of their matrimonial life this

Court through the jurisdictional police directed to find out the matrimonial

status of the appellant with his wife. The defacto complainant was enquired

and she gave a statement in writing on 27.02.2025. A scanned reproduction

of the statement given by the defacto complainant is as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

From the above statement it is seen that now reconciliation recorded,

but they became very close, showering love and affection. The

victim/defacto complainant has become pregnant for the second time

confirming that all his good between the appellant and the defacto

complainant are living happily.

8.Further, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Coimbatore filed a report on 16.04.2025 confirming that the appellant and

the defacto complainant were living happily as husband and wife. It is

further stated that the defacto complainant delivered a girl baby on

17.03.2025 for the second time. A scanned reproduction of the report is as

follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

9.The Apex Court in the case of K.Dhandapani (cited supra) held

that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the

happy family life of the appellant/accused. Hence, drawing inspiration from

the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court is inclined to set aside the

conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

10.Accordingly, the judgment dated 29.11.2021 in Spl.C.C.No.47 of

2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of

Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore is set aside and the appellant is

discharged from the above case.

11.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.

10.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )

To