[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Represented By on 17 February, 2026
2026:MHC:944
CRL A No.664 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No.664 of 2023
Ashok Kumar
S/o.Velusamy,
No.5/48, Paraiyadi Veedi,
Vaagaikkulam,
Ravanasamuthiram,
Ambasamuthiram,
Thirunelveli.
...Appellant/Sole
Accused
Vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur North,
Tiruppur District.
Cr.No.21 of 2021.
...Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set
aside the Judgment and Order passed on the appellant / accused by the Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District by a Judgment dated
20.01.2023 made in Spl.S.C.No.102 of 2021 and to acquit the appellant.
For Appellant: Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
CRL A No.664 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the
Judgment dated 20.01.2023 passed in Spl.S.C.No.102 of 2021 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District, convicting the
appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w 4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the
“POCSO Act”), and sentencing him to undergo seven years of rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer six months of
rigorous imprisonment.
2(a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused, aged about
19 years, had, on the promise of marriage, committed penetrative sexual assault
on the victim girl, aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence, between
26.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 and thus committed the aforesaid offence.
(b). It is further the case of the prosecution that P.W.9, the cousin brother
of the victim girl, had informed P.W.2, the mother of the victim girl, who was
living in Dindigul, that the victim, P.W.1, was attempting to commit suicide by
consuming rat poison; that immediately the victim’s mother rushed to Tiruppur,
where the victim was residing in P.W.9’s house, and when enquired, the victim,
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
P.W.1, told P.W.2 about the alleged occurrences that took place between
26.07.2021 and 29.07.2021, and a complaint [Ex.P2] was lodged on 09.10.2021.
(c). The FIR [Ex.P8] was registered by P.W.7, the Sub-Inspector of
Police in Crime No. 21 of 2021, for the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the
POCSO Act. P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation and,
after subjecting the victim, P.W.1, to medical examination and taking steps to
record the Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, filed the Final Report
against the appellant for the offence under Section 5(1) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act
before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur District.
(d). On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.102
of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur. The
Trial Court had framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under
Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. During the trial, when questioned, the
accused pleaded 'not guilty.'
(e). Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked 11 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P11. When the accused
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor
marked any document on his side.
(f). The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under
Section 3(a) r/w 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him as stated in paragraph
No.1 of this Judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
accused had preferred the instant appeal.
3. Mr.C.Prabakaran, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, would
submit that the complaint [Ex.P2] is false; that apart from the delay in lodging
the complaint, the conduct of the victim, P.W.1, would show that the allegations
are false; that the evidence of P.W.9, the cousin brother of the victim, would
show that the victim was never at Tiruppur in the month of July when the
alleged occurrence is said to have taken place; that there are contradictions in
the version of the victim between the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her
deposition in the Court; and that the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.3, would also
not corroborate the evidence of the victim, P.W.1, and in the light of the above
evidence, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and prayed for acquittal
of the appellant.
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
4. Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing
for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the age of the victim has been
established through P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, who has marked the birth
certificate of the victim girl, Ex. P11; that the defence has not disputed the age
of the victim; that even assuming that there was a delay in the complaint
[Ex.P2] and there was consent by the victim girl, the impugned Judgment
cannot be faulted as consent is immaterial; and that therefore, the impugned
Judgment need not be interfered with and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses. P.W1 is
the victim girl. P.W.2 is the mother of the victim who had lodged the complaint
[Ex.P2]. P.W.3 is the Doctor who had examined the victim and had issued the
Final Opinion, Ex.P3. P.W.4 is the Observation Mahazar witness and had
marked Ex.P4. P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined the appellant and had issued
Ex.P5, the Potency Certificate. P.W.6 is the Observation Mahazar witness and
marked Ex.P6. P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the FIR
[Ex.P8]. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the Final Report. P.W.9 is
the cousin brother of the victim, in whose house the victim is said to have
stayed at the time of the alleged occurrence.
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
6. The prosecution had filed the birth certificate of the victim girl,
Ex.P11, wherein the date of birth of the victim is shown as 29.06.2005.
The alleged occurrences are said to have taken place between 26.07.2021 and
29.07.2021. The victim was a child at the relevant point of time. The birth
certificate has not been challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution
established that the victim was a child at the time of occurrence.
7. As stated above, the alleged occurrences, according to the prosecution,
took place between 26.07.2021 and 29.07.2021. The complaint was lodged on
09.10.2021. It is the case of P.W.2, the victim’s mother, that she came to know
of the occurrence only in the month of October, when P.W.9 called her and
informed her that the victim was attempting to commit suicide. Strangely,
P.W.2, in her cross-examination, would state that she was not aware of the
contents of the FIR.
8. Further, P.W.2, in her deposition, would state that P.W.9 called her,
stating that when P.W.9 reprimanded the victim for talking to a person
frequently through a phone, the victim attempted to consume rat poison. She
would also admit that when the victim was examined by the Doctor, the Doctor
had not stated that the victim was pregnant. The evidence of P.W.2 would
therefore be of no avail to the prosecution. The manner in which the FIR came
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
into existence is highly doubtful, as P.W.2 herself had denied knowledge of its
contents.
9. Be that as it may. The prosecution case, therefore, rests on the sole
testimony of the victim. Admittedly, the victim had not complained about the
alleged occurrences to any person, including P.W.9, in whose house she was
staying, according to the prosecution. In fact, since P.W.9 had reprimanded the
victim for talking to a person over the phone continuously, and the victim
attempted to commit suicide by consuming rat poison, P.W.2, the mother of the
victim girl, had come to Tiruppur from Dindigul.
10. The Doctor, P.W.3, who had examined the victim, P.W.1, would state
in her final opinion, Ex.P3, that the victim had not sustained any external
injuries in any part of her body or in her genital part. Therefore, the medical
evidence also is of no avail to the prosecution, as it does not offer any
corroboration to the evidence of the victim. As stated above, the victim’s
evidence, therefore, has to be tested in the light of the above facts.
11. P.W.2, the mother of the victim, would state that the victim was
staying with her in Dindigul, and she had sent the victim to assist her daughter-
in-law, namely, the wife of P.W.9, who had given birth to a child on
16.03.2021. She would further add that during the month of May, her daughter-
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
in-law, along with the victim, came to their house in Dindigul and stayed in
their house for three months, and both of them left for Tiruppur thereafter.
12. P.W.9, the cousin brother of the victim, would corroborate this
version of P.W.2, the mother of the victim. P.W.9 in his cross-examination
would state specifically that he took his wife and the victim to the house of
P.W.2 on 31.05.2021, and since there was a lockdown, after that, he brought the
victim along with his wife in the month of August 2021, and thereafter, the
victim was sent for a job 10 days in the company where the appellant was also
working. The evidence of the above two witnesses, therefore, would make it
clear that the victim could not have been in Tiruppur, where the alleged
occurrences took place during the month of July 2021. This aspect, coupled
with the fact that the victim had not complained about the occurrences to any
person till October 2021, would make her version highly doubtful.
13. It is the case of the prosecution that the penetrative sexual assault was
committed thrice, twice in the house of P.W.9 and once in the house of the
appellant's uncle. The appellant's uncle has also not been examined by the
prosecution. P.W.9 would also not state anything about him being absent in the
house at the time when the alleged occurrences took place, especially when
there was a lockdown during the relevant period.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
14. In the light of the above evidence, this Court is of the view that the
conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim, P.W.1,
whose evidence does not inspire confidence and in any event is not of sterling
quality to base the conviction only on her testimony.
15. Considering all the above-said facts, the age of the appellant, and the
age of the victim, this Court is of the view that the impugned Judgment cannot
be sustained. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned Judgment
of conviction and sentence.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused vide Judgment dated 20.01.2023
by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, in
Spl.S.C.No.102 of 2021, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. The
bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged.
17-02-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dk
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tiruppur North,
Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk
17-02-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/03/2026 12:59:50 pm )
