[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sasikumar vs State Rep By on 8 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
CRL A No.451 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL A No.451 of 2021
Sasikumar
S/o.Murugan
Vengamoore Road, 3rd Ward,
Vellaiyampattu Village, Sirukulathur,
Senji(T.K), Villupuram District.
(now he is confined at Central Prison
No.1, Puzhal, Chennai-66)
Appellant
Vs
State Rep by
The Inspector of Police
W8, All Women Police Station
Thirumangalam, Chennai
Cr No.1845/2017
Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai in S.C.No.324 of
2018 dated 22.03.2021.
For Appellant: Mr.C.Samivel and Mr.P.Kannan
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
CRL A No.451 of 2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the
POCSO Act, Chennai in S.C.No.324 of 2018 dated 22.03.2021, convicting and
sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 16.10.2017, when the victim
girl, aged 16 years, residing at No.1, Krishna Nagar 5 th Street, Nerkundram,
Chennai along with her parents and studying 10th Standard, was alone at home,
the accused residing as a tenant in the house of the victim for about three years,
approached the victim girl often with love proposal and the promise of marrying
her and thereafter continuously enticed her and compelled her to have sexual
intercourse with him, due to which the victim became pregnant. When the
family members asked the victim about the cause of conceivement, she
consumed toiletry acid and when she was admitted in the hospital for treatment,
she delivered a stillborn child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
3. Based on the complaint, Ex.P8 given by the victim girl at the hospital
on 16.10.2017, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.1845 of
2017 for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On completion of the
investigation, the respondent Police laid the final report before the Mahila
Court, Chennai against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which was taken
on file in S.C.No.324 of 2018 and thereafter, the same was made over to the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the
POCSO Act, Chennai, for disposal.
4. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO
Act, Chennai framed a charge against the accused for the offence under Section
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
5. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, totally 9
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9 and 14 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P14 and no material object was exhibited.
6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
incriminating materials culled out from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the
same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence
was let in.
7. On conclusion of the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced
on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo
three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, besides recommending
the payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the dependents of the victim,
since deceased.
8. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court, the appellant/accused has preferred the above criminal appeal before
this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the age of the
victim was not proved. Therefore, in the absence of age proof, no offence can
be made out under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
birth certificate produced by the prosecution is not that of the victim. He would
further submit that the appellant never committed the penetrative sexual assault
and the victim alone wanted to marry the appellant and that the parents refused
to give the victim to the appellant. Therefore, the victim committed suicide in
order to escape from the clutches of law. The father of the victim has filed the
complaint as if the victim gave the complaint. The prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the
penetrative sexual assault on the victim and he has been erroneously convicted.
Further the age of the victim was not proved and if at all there was any sexual
relationship with the consent of the girl, it is not an offence and therefore the
judgment of the trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
victim was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence. The appellant, staying
as tenant in the house of the victim, made the victim to believe that he would
marry her and had frequent sexual intercourse with the victim. Due to that, the
victim became pregnant and when she developed stomach pain, she was
brought to the hospital, where she delivered a dead fetus and therefore, the
appellant committed the offence. The birth certificate of the victim was also
collected and produced and the same was also marked as Ex.P13 and the victim
was originally produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
recording of statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. Before the learned
Magistrate, she has also clearly stated that she was subjected to penetrative
sexual assault made by the appellant and even the complaint also was lodged
only by the victim. In the complaint, she has clearly stated that she was
subjected to penetrative sexual assault. Therefore the medical records also
would clearly show that the victim became pregnant and she also gave birth to
the still born infant and subsequently the fetus also died. DNA samples were
also collected from the appellant, victim and also the infant and sent for forensic
analysis. The DNA test also confirmed that the appellant is the biological father
of the deceased infant and therefore the fact about the sexual intercourse with
the victim was proved by the medical evidence, besides the statement of the
victim herself before the Magistrate. When the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child under the definition of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and she was subjected to the
penetrative sexual assault, the trial Court, appreciating both the oral and
documentary evidence, rightly convicted the appellant and sentenced him to the
maximum punishment of life imprisonment and therefore there is no merit in
the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
12. The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant, residing as
tenant in the house of the victim, developed a relationship with her.
Subsequently, when the victim was studying 10 th Standard, the appellant
followed her and conveyed his love proposal and though she refused initially,
subsequently, believing his sweet-coated words, she also fell in love with him.
When the appellant tried to have sexual intercourse, since she refused, the
appellant made her to believe that he would marry her. Thereafter, he had
sexual intercourse with the victim and due to that, she became pregnant and that
the child born to her also died. Therefore, she gave a complaint before the
respondent Police, who registered a case in Crime No.1845 of 2017 and
subsequently, after investigation, laid the charge sheet before the Special Court,
since the offence was against the child. The trial Court, after satisfying with the
material documents, framed the charge against the appellant and ultimately
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and awarded the maximum
punishment of life imprisonment on him. Though in order to substantiate the
case of the prosecution, on their side, totally 9 witnesses were examined,
pending investigation, since the victim died, she was not examined as a witness.
The death certificate of the victim also was marked as Ex.P14, which shows that
the victim died on 02.10.2018 pending trial. However, the father of the victim
was examined as PW1. He has deposed that since the stomach of the victim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
appeared bulged and when the reason was asked, she informed that the
appellant had indulged in the penetrative sexual assault and therefore PW1
asked the victim to lodge the complaint, since at the time of occurrence, the
victim was a child aged about 16 years. Therefore, the victim made the
complaint before the respondent police and the same was marked as Ex.P8.
Subsequently, the victim was also produced before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate for recording of statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. The
statement recorded from the victim was marked as Ex.P1, which clearly shows
that the appellant committed the penetrative sexual assault on her. The accident
register, Ex.P3 also shows that the victim gave birth to a child. The DNA
report, Ex.P11 also shows that the appellant is the biological father of the infant
born to the victim. Therefore, it is an inference that though there is no eye-
witness and the victim also died during trial, the victim was not examined
before the Court.
13. A combined reading of Ex.P1, the statement recorded under Section
164 by the learned Magistrate and Ex.P11, the DNA report would clearly
establish that the appellant committed the penetrative sexual assault on the
victim. Moreover, under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, if the prosecution proved the foundational fact, then there is a
presumption that the accused has committed the offence. However, the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
presumption being rebuttable one, it is for the appellant to prove the contrary.
14. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that
the victim was not a child and the birth certificate, Ex.P13 is not that of the
victim. According to the learned counsel, the victim’s name, as mentioned in the
complaint, Ex.P8 and in the First Information Report, Ex.P9 and other
documents, is shown as Sandhya, whereas the birth certificate marked as
Ex.P13 by the prosecution shows that the name of the person is mentioned as
Poongavanam. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove the age of
the victim. Since the victim already had love affairs with the appellant and the
victim was not a child at the time of occurrence, if at all there was a penetrative
sexual intercourse, that was with the consent of the victim and therefore there
was no offence either under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act or under the Indian Penal Code. It was also contended that the date of
occurrence is in the year of 2017, whereas the amendment Act came in the year
of 2019 and therefore the punishment imposed by the trial Court has to be
considered.
15. However, a reading of the evidence of PW1, who is none other than
the father of the victim, shows that he has clearly deposed that though the name
of the victim is Poongavanam, but called as Sandhya, which is a nick-name and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
therefore, the name mentioned in the birth certificate alone is the name of the
victim and the name mentioned in the complaint is only a nick-name. When the
father has given a clear explanation that the birth certificate, Ex.P13 is the birth
certificate of the victim and the victim also stated that at the time of occurrence
she was studying 10th Standard and was aged about 16 years, this Court finds
that the prosecution has proved that the victim was a child. Even otherwise,
except a mere denial, the appellant has not produced any contra evidence to
show that Ex.P13 is not the birth certificate of the victim. Under these
circumstances, from the complaint, Ex.P8 and the birth certificate, Ex.P13, this
Court finds that the deceased victim was a child under the definition of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and from the evidence of PW1
coupled with the statement recorded under Section 164 from the victim, Ex.P1
while she was produced before the learned Magistrate, would clearly establish
that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault done by the appellant.
Further, the DNA report, Ex.P11 clearly shows that the appellant is the
biological father of the infant born to the victim and therefore this Court finds
that the appellant has committed the charged offence. Therefore, the contention
of the appellant is not acceptable.
16. Even in the complaint and in the statement recorded under Section
164, the victim has stated that the appellant called her and though she initially
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
refused to accept the love proposal made by the appellant, subsequently she
accepted the same. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
consent is immaterial. A child cannot give consent for any illegal activities,
muchless for a sexual assault. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that
the custody of the victim was forcibly removed from the guardian for a forcible
sexual intercourse. Though this Court finds that the appellant has committed
the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, prior to amendment, since Section 6 provided that the
minimum sentence should be ten years and the maximum sentence should be
life imprisonment, in the light of the categorical statement given by the victim
under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate that she was called
by the appellant at 12 midnight after everyone slept in the house and both the
appellant and the victim had a chat in the bathroom of the victim, where the
appellant informed the victim that if both of them had a sexual intercourse, they
cannot be separated by their family members and even though the victim
refused initially, she consented for the same subsequently on being pacified by
the appellant and therefore, considering the mitigating circumstances involved
in this case, this Court is of the view that awarding the minimum sentence of ten
years rigorous imprisonment on the appellant would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court insofar as the sentence portion
alone is modified by imposing ten years rigorous imprisonment on the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, instead of life imprisonment.
17. With the above modification, the appeal stands dismissed.
(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
08-01-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
To
1. The Sessions Judge
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Cases under the POCSO Act
Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police
W8, All Women Police Station
Thirumangalam, Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
ss
08-01-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 07:07:37 pm )
