[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
S.Ramaraj vs State Through on 26 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.611 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.611 of 2023
S.Ramaraj ... Appellant/Sole accused
Vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Pudukottai All Women Police Station,
(Cr.No.24/2021) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records
connected to the judgment in Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2022, dated
28.10.2022, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Pudukottai and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed
against the appellant.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
Crl.A(MD)No.611 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed
in Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2022, dated 28.10.2022, on the file of the
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant
is the mother of the minor victim girl and she resides in the
house next door of the accused along with the victim girl, who
is aged about 15 years and her two other younger daughters.
On 07.11.2021, when the mother of the victim girl was taking
her younger daughters to Trichy for leaving them in
Nagamangalam school hostel, around 4.30 p.m., the victim was
playing outside her house, the accused called her to bring some
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
water. When the victim girl went to the house of the accused,
he had entered the house and had locked the door with sexual
intent and had pushed the victim girl down and had removed
her dresses and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual
assault on her. Earlier, ten months prior to the occurrence, the
accused had kept the victim girl in his house and in drunken
mood had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on
her and had criminally intimidated the victim girl that if she
discloses the same to anyone, he would murder her.
3. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, who is the
mother of the victim girl, FIR was registered by the
Pudukkottai All Women Police Station in Cr.No.24 of 2021 for
the offences punishable under Sections 506 Part I of IPC and
Section 5(l) and 6(1) of POCSO Act. After completion of
investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been
taken cognizance by the trial Court. The trial Court framed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
charge under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 506
Part I of IPC as against the accused.
4. In order to bring the charges to home, the
prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were
examined and Ex.D1 was produced before the trial Court.
5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 6(1) of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC. He
was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous
Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6(1) of
POCSO Act; he was sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous
Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that,
due to previous enmity, a false case has been foisted as against
the accused. The victim girl's house is nearby to the house of
the accused. On the date of occurrence, the mother of the
victim girl had visited the school hostel at Nagamangalam to
leave her two younger daughters. At that juncture, she received
a phone call from her co-sister one Mathumithra about the
occurrence. Thereafter, she came to her house and enquired
about the occurrence with the victim girl and lodged a
complaint on the next day ie., on 08.11.2021 at about 07.00
p.m. There was a huge delay in lodging the complaint and that
there is no explanation by the prosecution. On 28.10.2021 there
was a dispute between the accused family and the victim girl's
family with regard to drawing of water in the public pipeline,
which is situated close to their house. In continuation of the
same, on the same day at about 08.00 p.m., the husband of the
co-sister of P.W.1, under the influence of alcohol, came to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
house of the accused along with all family members and
assaulted the accused. Therefore, the accused sustained injury
and immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital,
Kantharvakottai at about 11.10 p.m, where, the Accident
Register was also recorded and it was marked as Ex.D1.
However, due to the advise of the panchayathars, no complaint
was lodged as against the persons, who assaulted the accused.
In order to escape from the clutches of law, P.W.1 has given a
false complaint as against the accused and projected as if he
committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim
girl. In order to substantiate the same, the accused had
examined D.Ws.1 to 3, however, the trial Court, without
considering the same, mechanically convicted the appellant on
the strength of the statement of the victim girl. The
prosecution also failed to examine any other witness to
corroborate the evidence of the victim. Even according to the
prosecution, the co-sister of P.W.1 and the grand-mother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
victim girl had come to the scene of occurrence and they
rescued the victim girl at the hands of the accused. However,
they were not examined by the prosecution. The doctor, who
examined the victim girl, deposed as P.W.3. She opined that the
victim’s hymen was not intact. There were no external injuries
observed. The pubic hair was sparse. There was no bleeding or
abnormal pain noted in the genital area of the victim. There
was no spermatozoa detected on the victim. Therefore, except
the evidence of the victim girl, no other evidences support the
prosecution case.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the delay
is immaterial in sexual offence cases. On the next day of the
occurrence, the complaint was lodged and therefore, there was
no delay in lodgment of the complaint. The victim girl's
evidence is the best evidence and it need not be corroborated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
by other evidences. The doctor, who examined the victim girl
deposed as P.W.3 and she opined that the victim's hymen was
not intact. The victim girl's mother had deposed as P.W.1 and
she categorically deposed about the occurrence. Though the
defence side had taken a plea that there was a dispute with
regard to drawing of water in the public pipeline, in order to
substantiate the same, the accused did not produce any
documentary evidence. Hence, the trial Court rightly convicted
the accused and does not warrant any interference of this
Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent.
9. The mother of the victim girl had deposed as P.W.1.
According to her statement, on the date of occurrence ie., on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
07.11.2021 she went to Nagamangalam to drop their two
younger daughters in the school hostel. On the same day, at
about 08.00 p.m., she received a phone call from her co-sister
one Mathumithra about the occurrence and she stated that, her
minor daughter was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual
assault at about 04.30 p.m., by the accused and on the next day,
ie., on 08.11.2021 she lodged a complaint at about 07.00 p.m.,
before the respondent police. The complaint was marked as
Ex.P1. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent police
registered the FIR in Cr.No.24 of 2021 against the accused. On
the next day, ie on 09.11.2021 at about 1.30 p.m., the
respondent police arrested the accused at about 03.00 p.m., and
he was remanded to judicial custody.
10. The victim girl had deposed as P.W.2. She stated
that, on 07.11.2021 her mother went to hostel to drop her two
younger sisters at the Nagamangalam school hostel, thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
while she was playing with other children, the accused called
her and asked her to fetch some water from his house. After
entering into the house, the accused locked the door and shut
her mouth with towel and had committed penetrative sexual
assault on her. While being so, her peternal aunt ie., co-sister
of P.W.1 called the victim and immediately, the accused flew
away from his house. Thereafter, the victim girl informed the
occurrence to her paternal aunt and grand-mother, thereafter,
the paternal aunt informed the same P.W.1 through phone.
After registration of the FIR, the victim girl was subjected for
medical examination before P.W.3. P.W.3 recorded her
statement that on 07.11.2021 at about 4.30 p.m., the accused
had committed penetrative sexual assault on her. On her
examination, she found that the victim's hymen was not intact,
and no external injuries, pubic hair sparse or
bleeding/abnormal discharge was found. She was not pregnant
and the vaginal smear was collected for analysis of Forensic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
Science Laboratory and accordingly, no spermatozoa was
detected. Thereafter, the statement of the victim girl was
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which was marked as
Ex.P3. The relevant portion of her statement is as follows:-
“rpd;dg;gps;saYtNshl
tpisahz;Lfpl;L ,Ue;Njd;. gf;fj;J tPlL
; y
khkh $g;gpl;lhq;f rhH. jz;zPH nkhz;L
nfhLf;f nrhd;dhq;f. Fjit rhj;jpfpl;L
nfl;l thHj;ij gz;zhq;f. Jz;lyhk;
fl;bf;fpl;L rhH bur;ry;yhk; mTj;Jtpl;Llhq;f
rhH. fjit rhj;Jehq;f rhH. mk;khyhk;
jq;fr;rpa `h];ly;y nfhz;b tpl
Nghapl;lhq;f. mg;gh Ntiyf;F Nghapl;lhq;f.
Ehd; mOJ fj;jpNdd;. mjf;fg;Gwkhjhd; rhh;
ehd; mk;khl;l nrhd;Ndd;. mt;tsTjhd; rhH.”
11. Thus, it is clear that, she did not even whisper
about the earlier occurrence, which was allegedly committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
by the accused, 10 months prior to the occurrence. In the
statement, she did not state anything about the presence of the
paternal aunt and her grand-mother. It is also curious to note
that the prosecution did not examine the paternal aunt and the
grand-mother of the victim girl to corroborate the evidence of
the victim girl. Further, the prosecution also failed to recover
any material such as, towel from the place of occurrence,
which was used to shut the mouth of the victim girl. According
to the prosecution, the accused shut the mouth of the victim
girl with a towel and had committed aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on her. It is also useful to extract the relevant
portion of the victim girl's evidence hereunder:-
“......07.11.2021 md;W vd;Dila jhahu;
jpUr;rp ehfkq;fsk; gs;spf;F vd; jq;iffis
`h];lypy; tpLtjw;fhf kjpak; 2.00 kzpf;F
vd; jhahu;> uhkuh[dpd; kidtp. vd;
jq;iffs; kw;Wk; uhkuh[d; gps;isfis
mioj;Jf;nfhz;L nrd;whu;fs;. ehd; vd; mk;kh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
nrd;wgpwF rpd;dgps;isfSld; thrypy;
tpisahbf;nfhz;bUe;Njd;. mg;NghJ uhkuh[d;
jz;zPu; vLj;Jf;nfhL vd;W vd;id
mioj;jhu;. ehd; tukhl;Nld; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;.
kPz;Lk; vd;id uhkuh[d; mioj;jhu;. ehd;
nrd;W jz;zPu; vLj;J nfhLj;jNghJ>
uhkuh[d; fjit rhj;jpf;nfhz;L> vd;Dila
Milfis vy;yhk; vjpup fiye;Jtpl;lhu;.
vd;Dld; clYwTnfhz;lhu;. vjpup vd; thapy;
nts;is Jz;il itj;Jtpl;lhu;. mjdhy;
vd;dhy; fj;jKbatpy;iy. gpd;du; vd; rpj;jp
ghg;gh vd;W vd;id mioj;jhu;. me;j
rkaj;jpy; vjpup Yq;fpia fl;bf;nfhz;L
Xbtpl;lhu;. gpd;du; vd; rpj;jp> vd;Dila Mah
vy;NyhUk; te;J vd;d ele;jJ vd;W
Nfl;lhu;fs;. ehd; ele;jij nrhd;Ndd;. vd;
rpj;jp vd; mk;khtpw;F Nghd; nra;J tptuj;ij
nrhd;dhu;. mjd;gpwF vd; jhahu;. 7.00
kzpf;Fj;jhd; jpUk;gp te;jhu;. vd; jhahu; vd;d
ele;jJ vd;W Nfl;lhu;. ehd; ele;jij
nrhd;Ndd;. vd; jhahu; NghyPRf;F Nghd;
nra;J nrhy;yNtz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhu;. vd;
mk;khtplk; ,jw;F Kd;G Kjy; nfhNuhdh
rkaj;jpy; vd;jhahu; Ntiyf;F nrd;wpUe;j
rkaj;jpYk;> vjpupapd; kidtp Ntiyf;F
nrd;wpUe;j rkaj;jpYk; vjpup vd;Dila
Milfis fiye;J mtH tPlb ; y; itj;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
vd;Dld; clYwTnfhz;lhu;. vd;
jhahu; ,Jrk;ke;jkhf Gfhu; nfhLj;jhh;.”
12. The investigating officer recorded the statement
of P.W.3 under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. In her statement, she
stated that the hymen of the victim was intact. The accident
register was marked as Ex.P4. Accordingly, the doctor opined
that the hymen of the victim was not intact. The report also
revealed that no evidence of free fluid in abdomen and pelvis
was found. Though the victim girl is fit for having sexual
intercourse, there is no injury on the part of her genetelia.
However, in the handwritten copy of the accident register,
P.W.3 recorded that the hymen was not intact. While deposing
before the Court, she deposed that her hymen was not intact.
The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses, except
the victim girl and the doctor. In the sexual offence case,
though the victim girl's evidence is sufficient to convict the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
accused, there are circumstances, warranted to corroborate the
evidence of the victim girl. The specific defence of the
accused was that, on 28.10.2021 there was a quarrel between
the accused family and the victim's family with regard to
drawing of water from the public pipeline. The family
members of the accused had put up hosepipe in the pipeline
and had drawn water and the same was objected by the co-
sister of P.W.1 and immediately, her husband removed the pipe.
Therefore, there was an altercation between them and due to
which, the mother of the accused sustained injury on her eyes,
however, no complaint was lodged on the advise of
Panchayathars. On the same day, at about 08.00 p.m., the
husband of P.W.1's co-sister and the grand-mother of the victim
girl came to the house of the accused and scolded them with
filthy language and also assaulted the accused and his family
members. Therefore, the accused sustained injuries.
Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
Kantharvakottai at about 11.10 p.m., where he was treated by
the Medical Officer. The Accident Register was recorded and
it was marked as Ex.D1. On perusal of Ex.D1, it is revealed
that the accused was assaulted by 5 known persons at his
residence. Therefore, he sustained injuries and he was treated
as out patient. Though the accused and his family members
intended to lodge a complaint, D.W.3, who is the ward
councillor, pacified them and as such, no complaint was
lodged. However, P.W.1 and her co-sister along with the
grand-mother of the victim thought that they would lodge a
complaint against them and as such, they foisted a false
complaint as if, the accused had committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on the victim. The relevant portion of
the evidence of D.W.1 is extracted hereunder:-
“..... vq;fs; tPl;bw;Fk;> kJkpj;uh
tPlb
; w;Fk; jz;zPu; gpbg;gjpy;
gpur;rpid ,Ue;jJ. mtu; tPL vd; tPlb ; w;F
gf;fj;jpy;jhd; cs;sJ. ,e;j gpur;rpid 10-k;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
khjk; NghdtUlk; ele;jJ. ehq;fs; me;j
igg;gpy; X]; Nghl;Ltpl;Nlhk;. mij kJkpj;uh
mtuJ fztuplk; nrhy;yp> me;j Xir
gpbq;fptpl;L> ePq;fs; kl;Lk; Nghlyhkh vd;W
vq;fsplk; rz;ilNghl;L> mbj;jhu;fs;. mjpy;
vd; khkpahUf;F fz;zpy; fhak; Vw;gl;lJ.
vq;fis tof;F nfhLf;fr;nrhd;dhu;fs; ehq;fs;
nfhLf;ftpy;iy. ehq;fs; ehd;FNgu;fsplk; ,e;j
tptuj;ij nrhd;Ndhk;. mtu;fSk; te;J
Ngrpdhu;fs;. mJ ngupa gpur;rpidahdJ>
mjd;gpwF ehq;fs; tpl;Ltpl;Nlhk;. me;j
igg;ig milj;J tpl;lhHfs;. kJkpj;uhtpd;
fztu; 7-k; Njjp 11-k; khjk;> jz;zp
mbj;Jtpl;L> ,uT 8.00 kzpf;F vq;fs;
tPlb
; w;Fs; Fr;rp> tpsf;FkhW vLj;Jte;J
ntz;zpyh> u[pdp> Nkhfd;> gupksh> kJkpj;uh
MfpNahu; vd;idAk;> vd; khkpahiuAk;> vd;
fztiuAk; mbj;jhu;fs;. mjpy; vd;
fztUf;F fhak; Vw;gl;lJ. mjd;gpwF ehq;fs;
fe;ju;tf;Nfhl;il muR nghJ kUj;Jtkidf;F
,uT 11.10 kzpf;F nrd;Nwhk;. mq;F vd;
fztUf;F rpfpr;ir mspj;jhu;fs;. mq;fpUe;J
fhty;epiyak; nrd;W Gfhu;nfhLj;Jtpl;L>
GJf;Nfhl;il muR kUj;Jkidf;F rpfpr;irf;F
NghFk;gb nrhd;dhu;fs;. fe;ju;tf;Nfhl;il muR
nghJ kUj;Jtkidapy; nfhLj;j tpgj;J
gjpNtL v.rh.M. 1 mjd;gpwF ehq;fs; tPlb ; w;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
nrd;Wtpl;Nlhk;. gpd;du; 9-k; Njjp 3.00
kzpastpy; NghyPrhu; te;jhu;fs;.”
13. Her evidence also corroborate with the cross-
examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 categorically admitted that, on the
date of occurrence, there was a dispute with regard to drawing
of water from the public pipeline. The relevant portion of the
deposition of P.W.1 is as follows:-
“......vjpuptPLk;> vq;fs; tPLk; gf;fj;J
gf;fj;jpy;jhd; cs;sJ. vq;fs; tPlb ; w;F vjpupy;
igg;gb cs;sJ. me;j igg;gbapy;jhd; vq;fs;
tPL> vjpup tPL> kJkpj;uh tPlb ; y; cs;stu;fs;
jz;zPu; gpbg;ghu;fsh vd;why;> Mkhk;. me;j
igg;gpy; jz;zPu; gpbg;gJ rk;ke;jkhf vjpup
uhkuh[pw;Fk;> kJkpj;uhtpd; fztUf;Fk;
gpur;rpid te;J mbj;Jf;nfhz;lhu;fsh vd;why;>
Mkhk;. me;j rz;ilapy; jz;zPu; igg;ig
cilj;Jtpl;lhu;fsh vd;why;> Mkhk;. mjdhy;
uhkuh[d; tPl;by; cs;stu;fSk;;> kJkpj;uh
tPlb
; y; cs;stu;fSk; Ngrpf;nfhs;skhl;lhu;fs;
vd;why; rupjhd;. kJkpj;uh jk;gp guzpia
vdf;Fj; njupAk;. kJkpj;uh jk;gp guzp kJkpj;uh
tPlb; w;F tUthuh vd;why;> tUthu;. vdf;F
kJkpj;uh nrhy;ypjhd; vd; ngz;zpw;F ,t;thW
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
gpur;rpid Vw;gl;lJ vd;W njupAkh vd;why;>
Mkhk;. NghyPrhu; vd;id kWehs; te;J
tprhupj;jhu;fs;. NghyPrhu; tprhupf;Fk;NghJ
vd;Dila Nghd; ek;giuAk;> kJkpj;uh Nghd;
ek;giuAk; ehd; nrhy;yypy;iy. ehd; tPlb ; w;F
te;J vd; kfsplk; tptuq;fis Nfl;L
njupe;jgpwF vq;fs; FLk;gj;jpw;Fk;> vjpup
FLk;gj;jpw;Fk; rz;il vd;why;> Mkhk;> me;j
rz;ilapy; vjpup uhkuh[;. kzpNkfiy kw;Wk;
mtuJ jhahUf;F fhak; Vw;gl;lJ
vd;why;> ,y;iy. ehd;jhd; mtu;fis
mbj;Njd;.”
14. Further it is also clear that, P.W.1 received
information about the occurrence through phone call from her
co-sister. Hence, the defence proved the motive for lodging
false complaint as against the accused. That apart, the victim
did not even whisper about the earlier occurrence, allegedly
committed by the accused, in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., First time, in the Court, she deposed
that during Corona period, the accused had committed the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
offence against her. But P.W.1 deposed that, 10 months prior
to the occurrence, the accused had committed the same offence
as against the victim girl. However, it is not corroborated by
P.W.2 by her deposition or by her statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., The victim girl was about 15 years at
the time of occurrence. She attained puberty and further had
the maturity to have prevented the appellant from committing
such offence. No prudent person would keep quit for 10
months without even whispering about the incident to anybody.
It is not the case of the victim that she was threatened with dire
consequences, if she informed about the occurrence to others.
But P.W.1 deposed that the accused had threatened the victim
with dire consequences if she discloses the occurrence to
anybody. The victim did not even whisper about the alleged
threatening made by the accused in her statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and also she did not even whisper
about the earlier occurrence in the statement recorded under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused had also examined D.W.2
and D.W.3. D.W.2 is a third person and she categorically
deposed that on the date of alleged occurrence, there was a
dispute with regard to drawing of water from the public
pipeline. The relevant portion of D.W.2 is as follows:-
“ehd; jr;rq;Fwpr;rpapy; trpf;fpNwd;. ehd;
uhkuh[; tPl;bypUe;J %d;W tPLfs; js;sp
trpj;J tUfpNwd;. kJkpj;uh vd;gtu; vjpupkPJ
tof;F nfhLj;Js;shu;. vjpup tPlb ; w;F Kd;G
cs;s ghijapy; ehd;F rf;futhfdq;fs;
nry;Yk;NghJ mbf;fb kJkpj;uh> u[pdp
MfpNahu; vjpup uhkuh[{ld; rz;il NghLthu;fs;.
nghJigg; xd;W mq;F cs;sJ. me;j igg;gpy;
vjpupapd; kidtp kzpNkfiy X]; Nghl;L
jz;zPu; gpbj;jpUf;fpwhu;. ePq;f kl;Lk;jhd;
gpbf;fDkh> ehq;fs; gpbf;ff;$lhjh vd;W
nrhy;yp rz;ilNghl;L jfhj thu;j;ijahy; Ngrp>
Nkhfd;> ntz;zpyh> kJkpj;uh> gupksh MfpNahu;
kdpNkfiy kw;Wk; mtuJ khkpahiu
mbj;jhu;fs;> rz;il Nghl;lhu;fs;. gpd;du;
ehq;fs;> gf;fj;JtPlL ; f;fhuHfs; kw;Wk; rpyH
nrd;W gpur;rpidia jPHj;Jtpl;Nlhk;. mg;NghJ
kJkpj;uh ,j;NjhL tplkhl;Nld;> cq;fis vq;f
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
tr;rp ghHf;fDNkh> mq;f tr;rp ghHf;fpNwd;
vd;W nrhd;dhH. XU epkplkhtJ cd;id
NghyP];Nlrdpy; itf;fpNwd; vd;W kpul;bdhH.
15. D.W.2 categorically corroborated the evidence of
D.W.1 and it is also admitted by P.W.1 in her cross-
examination. The ward councillor was examined as D.W.3.
He also supports the case of the accused and he was the one
who pacified both the family members and prevented them
from lodging any complaint. The relevant portion of D.W.3's
deposition is as follows:-
“.......ehd; thu;L cWg;gpdu; vd;gjhYk;
vd;dplKk;> gQ;rhaj;J jiytuplKk; vjpupapd;
kidtp ,J rk;ke;jkhf nrhd;dhu; mjw;F ehd;
ehidf;F fhiyapy; Nfl;L nrhy;fpNwd; vd;W
nrhd;Ndd;. mjd;gpwF ehq;fs; nrd;W Nfl;Nlhk;.
mjw;F mtu;fs; ,Jrk;ke;jkhf ePq;f
jiyaplhjPq;f ehq;f mtu;fis ghu;j;Jf;fpNwhk;
vd;W nrhd;dhu;fs;. ehq;fs; nrhy;yp ghu;j;Njhk;
Nfl;ftpy;iy> mjd;gpwF ehq;f te;Jtpl;Nlhk;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
mjw;FgpwF xUthuk; fopj;J uhkuh[;> mtuJ
kidtpiaAk; kJkpj;uh> Nkhfd;gpuG> u[pdp>
u[pdp kidtp ntz;zpyh ehd;F> Ie;J
Ngu;fSk; $b mbj;Jtpl;lhu;fs;. mjd;gpwF
uhkuh[; Gfhu;nfhLf;fNtz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhu;.
mjw;F ehd;jhd; rpd;dgps;isfshf
,Uf;fpwhu;fs;> cd;Dila gps;isfs; mq;F
Nghthu;fs;> mtu;fs; gps;isfs; tUthu;fs;
Ntz;lhk; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. mjdhy; uhkuh[;
Gfhu; nfhLf;ftpy;iy.
16. Thus, it is clear that, previous enmity between
both the family members with regard to drawing of water from
the public pipeline was categorically proved by the defence.
The accused's family is residing very close to the house of the
victim girl. If at all the first occurrence had happened, that too,
10 months prior to 07.11.2021, it could not have been possible
for the accused to live near the house of the victim. Further,
the victim girl did not even whisper about the date, time and
place of the earlier occurrence. It clearly shows that only to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
wreak vengeance against the accused, the victim girl was
tutored by P.W.1 and a false case had been foisted against him.
The non-examination of co-sister of P.W.1 and the grand-
mother of the victim is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
P.W.2, the victim girl categorically deposed that her paternal
aunt and her grand-mother rescued her on the date of
occurrence. Further, the alleged occurrence took place at about
4.30 p.m., on 07.11.2021 and the complaint was lodged only on
08.11.2021, that too, at about 07.00 p.m. The prosecution failed
to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. It is true that, in
the sexual offence case, the delay is immaterial and it is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, in the case on
hand, the delay speaks the false complaint foisted as against the
accused. Further, P.W.3, who had examined the victim girl,
also is not clear about the condition of the victim girl's hymen.
In one place she had stated that the hymen was intact and in
another place she had stated that the hymen was not intact.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
That apart, admittedly, no injury was found on the genetelia of
the victim girl. Hence, the entire case of the prosecution
appears to be false and only to wreak vengeance as against the
accused, a false case has been foisted against him.
17. It is also pertinent to note that the accused, after
committing the alleged serious offence, he did not abscond
anywhere. He was very much available in his house till his
arrest. In fact, he went to the hospital for the injury sustained
by him due to attack of the victim girl's family members.
Therefore, no prudent person, after committing such grave
offence, would be present in his house. It is not the case of the
victim that she was threatened by the accused, if disclosed to
anybody. Further, even according to the case of the
prosecution, the paternal aunt and the grand-mother of the
victim were very much present in the scene of occurrence.
Even then, she did not disclose the offence. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
cumulative effect of the inconsistent testimony of the victim,
lack of corroboration of the medical evidence, lack of
authenticity in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the
proper rebuttal of presumption under Section 29 of POCSO
Act on part of the defence by conclusively proving that the
case on hand was foisted falsely to wreak vengeance brings
this Court to the conclusion that the appellant is innocent.
18. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2022, dated
28.10.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai
cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
19. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and
the judgment made in Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2022, dated
28.10.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, is
hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall
stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be
refunded to the appellant. The appellant shall be set at liberty
forthwith, if he is no longer required in connection with any
other case.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
26.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
am
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pudukottai All Women Police Station,
2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Pudukottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
am
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 11:50:54 am )
