Mariselvam v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the petitioner, pursuant to his conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, vide judgment dated 06.09.2024 in Spl.SC.No.159 of 2022.

¶2By the impugned judgment, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l), read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

¶3Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellant has filed the present criminal appeal, along with a criminal miscellaneous petition, seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. This Court, vide order dated 11.06.2026, had granted interim bail to the appellant on the submission that he was willing to marry the victim.

¶4The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the victim girl were in relationship since the year 2018. On 22.01.2022, the appellant allegedly went to the victim's house and offered her a chocolate. After eating the chocolate, the victim girl lost consciousness, following which the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence the criminal case was registered.

¶5During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W1 to P.W.13, marked Exhibits P1 to P12. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documentary evidence was marked.

¶6The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing arguments on both sides, found the appellant guilty of the offence under the POCSO Act, and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, vide its judgment dated 06.09.2024.

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim was a school-going, educated girl who was in a consensual romantic relationship with the petitioner. He contended that the victim did not disclose the alleged relationship or assault to her parents at any point in time, and it was only after a medical examination confirmed her pregnancy that she disclosed the name of the petitioner. It was further submitted that at the scanning centre, the victim herself had given her age as 19 years, thereby indicating that she was a major and that it was a consensual relationship. According to the petitioner, the victim actually had a relationship with a neighbour named Yuvaraj, who was responsible for the pregnancy, and the petitioner had refused to marry the victim despite intervention and mediation by a church pastor. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for the suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner.

¶8The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the petitioner's contentions. She submitted that the petitioner took advantage of the absence of victim's parents, who are daily-wage labourers, and used to enter the victim's house to commit penetrative sexual assault under the false pretext of marriage. She further submitted that the victim delivered a child, and a DNA test conclusively established the petitioner's paternity. It was also submitted that after the victim became pregnant, the victim and her parents insisted on marriage, the petitioner washed his hands of the matter, stating that he was not responsible for her pregnancy, and falsely shifting the blame onto her neighbour, the said Yuvaraj. Regarding the co-accused Yuvaraj, the learned Government Advocate clarified that he was impleaded as an accused solely because of the false allegations made by the petitioner. However, since the victim (P.W.1) did not depose anything against the said Yuvaraj during the trial, the trial Court has rightly acquitted him. She thus prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.

¶9At this juncture, after making detailed submissions on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to marry the victim girl to settle the matter amicably.

¶10In response, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), that this Court had granted interim bail on 11.06.2026 solely based on this representation, in order to ascertain the victim's willingness since she has now attained majority. The interim bail was extended until today for this purpose.

¶11Today, the victim girl appeared before this Court through video conferencing. When the victim was questioned by this Court, she categorically stated that she is not willing to maintain any relationship or marry the petitioner. She further stated that she is currently pursuing her B.A. in English Literature at Bharathidasan College, and wishes to concentrate on her education and future.

¶12Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and also perused the materials available on record.

¶13Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the categorical statement made by the victim girl through video conferencing, this Court finds no merits in the grounds raised by the petitioner. Furthermore, the medical evidence and the DNA report conclusively confirm the paternity of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner.

¶14Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. The interim bail granted earlier stands vacated. The respondent police is directed to secure the petitioner, take him into custody immediately to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. 18-08-2026 Jd To

¶1The Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur (North) All Women Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.26 of 2022

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoMPoNo.o7606oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMARoJ. jd CRLoMPoNo.o7606oofo2026 in CRLoAoNo.o544oofo2026 18-08-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-08-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR in CRL A No. 544 of 2026 Mariselvam Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Tiruppur (North) All Women Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.26 of 2022 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 415 of BNSS, to suspend the sentence which was imposed on the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No.159 of 2022, dated 06.09.2024 on the file of the Learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court),Tiruppur and enlarge the petitioner on bail till pending disposal of the appeal. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Selvakumar For Respondent(s): Mrs.Sharada Vivek Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Mr.M.Arulraj