[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Murugesan vs The State Rep By on 16 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.102 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl. A. (MD)No.102 of 2024
Murugesan .. Appellant/Sole accused
Vs.
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Pudukottai
Pudukottai District.
Crime No.13/2021 ..Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2022 in S.C.No.27 of 2022 on
the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Somasundaram
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.102 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the judgment passed by
the Mahila Court, Pudukottai in Spl. S.C.No.26/2022 dated 29.08.2022,
wherein, the accused person has been convicted and sentenced in the
following manner:
S.No. Convicted u/s. Sentence Fine
1 6(1) of To undergo life To pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-
POCSO imprisonment which in default to undergo rigorous
(Amendment) shall mean remainder imprisonment for one year
Act 2019 of natural life of the
accused
2 22 of POCSO Rigorous To pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
(Amendment) imprisonment for 6 in default to undergo simple
Act 2019 months imprisonment for two weeks
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence
already undergone is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused person is the father
and the victim girl is the daughter. The victim girl was studying in 11th
standard at Government Higher Secondary School. The accused person is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
said to have committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl
repeatedly and as a result, the victim girl became pregnant and was admitted
to Pudukottai Raniyar Government Hospital for treatment and on
15.09.2021, the child was still born.
3. Based on the statement recorded from the victim girl, a complaint
was preferred (Ex.P1), which resulted in the registration of the FIR (Ex.P8)
for offence under Section 5l, 5j(ii) and Section 6 (1) of the POCSO Act
2012.
4. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. (Ex.P11). The victim had stated that she has two brothers and she
was studying in the 11th standard. On 14.04.2021, after everyone had left the
house, at about 11 a.m., the accused person committed penetrative sexual
assault. Thereafter, the accused person is said to have threatened the victim
girl not to reveal about the same to anyone. This act was committed
repeatedly and as a result, victim girl became pregnant and she delivered a
still born premature child.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
5. Based on the FIR registered, PW7 took up the investigation and
went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P9
and rough sketch Ex.P10. She also took steps to get a DNA test done by the
Forensic Sciences Lab, Chennai and accordingly, a requisition letter was
sent. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also made arrangements for recording the
statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The DNA report
(Ex.P4) was received and had confirmed the fact that the father of the child
was the accused person. On completing the investigation, the final report
was filed before the Special Court and the Special Court framed charges for
offence under Sections 5l, 5n, 5j(ii) read with Section 6(1) and 22 of the
POCSO Amendment Act, 2019. The accused person denied the charges as
false.
6. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to P14.
7. The incriminating circumstances and the evidence were put to the
accused person, when he was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
and he denied the same as false.
8. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he rely
upon any document.
9. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of oral and documentary, evidence came to the
conclusion that the prosecution has discharged its onus by establishing the
foundational facts and the accused person failed to rebut the legal
presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act and accordingly
proceeded to convict and sentence the accused person in the manner stated
supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this
court.
10. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
11. The crux of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
appellant is that a false case has been foisted against the appellant since he
had a disturbed relationship with his wife (PW2).
12. PW1 is the victim girl. She, in her evidence, has explained the
manner in which she was sexually exploited by the accused person, who is
none other than the father of the victim girl. Statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., from the victim girl further corroborates the evidence
of PW1. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of PW1.
13. PW2 is the wife of the accused and the mother of the victim girl.
She has also stated about the fact that her daughter became pregnant and
only at that point of time, she came to know about this incident.
14. Insofar as the age of the victim girl is concerned, the same has
been spoken to by PW3, who is the Headmaster of the School and through
whom the school certificate was marked as Ex.P5 showing the date of birth
of the victim girl as 27.09.2005.
15. PW6 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl and ascertained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
that the victim girl was 26 weeks pregnant. She has also spoken about the
still born premature child delivered on 15.09.2021 at about 5.45 p.m. She
also talks about the request made for sending DNA of the foetus and Ex.P7,
which was the Accident Register prepared by the Doctor.
16. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, who talks about the various
steps that were taken in the course of investigation.
17. Ex.P14 assumes a lot of significance in this case since it is the
report of the Forensic Sciences Department, which confirms the fact that the
accused is the biological father of the foetus.
18. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence of the victim
girl has to be necessarily acted upon and the Court is not required to look
for corroboration unless the evidence is disbelieved. The evidence of PW1
is further corroborated in this case by the evidence of the mother PW2 and
also the medical evidence which shows that the accused person is the father
of the foetus and that clinches the case of the prosecution. In this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
prosecution has not only established the foundational facts, but they have in
fact proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, they have discharged
their burden under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The accused
person has miserably failed to rebut the legal presumption. Therefore, there
is absolutely no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial Court.
19. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed and the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Pudukottai, in SC NO.27 of 2022 is hereby confirmed.
[N.A.V, J.] & [P.D.B, J.]
16.03.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section officer (English Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
RR
Judgment made in
16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 01:24:02 pm )
