S.Thirumuran v. The Inspector of Police

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.) This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.13/2022, dated 30.09.2022, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, the minor victim girl was aged about 15 years. She was studying 11th standard and the accused is being a neighbour of the victim girl aged about 37 years. When the parents of the victim girl went out, during the month of March 2021, the accused came to her house and committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault. The accused also continued to do the same, while the victim girl was alone at her house during Covid-19 lock-down. Thereafter, the victim became pregnant and suffered from stomach pain. Thereafter, the victim girl disclosed the offence committed by the accused and lodged a complaint.

¶3On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.10 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report. On receipt of the same, the trial Court had taken cognizance and framed the charges as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449 of IPC, 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC.

¶4On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and no document was marked.

¶5On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part I of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to mention the date of the alleged occurrence, and that there was a huge delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained. It is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. The doctor, who examined the victim girl, did not depose before the Court and as a result, the medical evidence failed to support the case of the prosecution in proving the charge under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the prosecution did not establish the victim's age in accordance with the law. Despite the fact that the DNA analysis report is not a conclusive piece of evidence to prove the allegation of sexual assault, the trial court mechanically convicted the accused. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and must be set aside.

¶7Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and he also threatened the victim girl with dire consequences if she discloses the fact to anybody. Due to repeated penetrative sexual assault, the victim girl got pregnant. Subsequently, the pregnancy was aborted and the foetus was subjected to DNA test. It is categorically proved that the accused is the reason for pregnancy. The victim girl had deposed as P.W.2. She categorically deposed that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses it to anybody. Therefore, only after pregnancy, complaint was lodged before the respondent. That apart, the delay is immaterial in the sexual offence case. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly proved the charges, and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, the conviction by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶8Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶9To prove the age of the victim, the prosecution marked the school certificate of the victim as Ex.P.6, which clearly established that the victim was 15 years old at the time of the occurrence. The accused was 37 years old at the time of the incident. During Covid-19 lock-down, when the victim girl was alone in her house, the accused tress-passed into her house and utilising the absence of her parents had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened her not to disclose anybody and committed the very same offence repeatedly. As a result, she got pregnant and only thereafter, her parents came to know that the victim girl was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the accused. Immediately, the mother of the victim girl had lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.10 of 2021. Hence, there is absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint. The mother of the victim girl had deposed as P.W.1. She deposed that due to Covid-19 lock-down, the victim girl did not go to school and she was alone in the house. The occurrence happened around 7 to 8 p.m. While being so, during the month of March 2021, P.W.1 was informed by the victim girl that she had stomach pain, vomiting and drowsiness. Though the victim girl was administered some medicine, she did not recover from the stomach pain. Thereafter, she came to understand about her pregnancy and the victim girl informed about the occurrence. Immediately, she lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The victim girl had deposed as P.W.2. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which was marked as Ex.P2. She categorically stated that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, as a result, she got pregnant. She had deposed before the Court as P.W.2. The relevant portion of her deposition is as follows:- Crl.A(MD)No.821oofo2022 "fle;j 15.03.2021 md;W khiy 6.00 kzpf;F vdJ ngupa jhj;jhit ghu;f;f vdJ mkk; hTk;> mg;ghTk; ?ykuj;Jg;gl;bf;F nrdw; hu;fs;. md;W kio nga;J nfhzb; Ue;jjhy; vdJ mk;kh> mg;gh md;wpuT tPl;bw;F tutpy;iy. ehDk;> vdJ jqi; ffs; ,UtUk; tPl;bypUe;Njhk;. vdJ jqi; ffs; ,UtUk; gf;fj;J tlP ;bw;F nrd;W tpisahbf;nfhzb; Ue;jhu;fs;> mg;NghJ md;wpuT ?khu; 8.30 kzpf;F jpU?Ufd; vq;fs; tlP ;bw;F te;jhu;. cdf;F gpbj;jJ vy;yhk; thq;fpj;jUfpNwd; vd;Wk; ehk; ,UtUk; xd;whf ,Uf;fyhk; vd;Wk; vdi; d ?g;gpll; hu;. ehd; Ntz;lhnkd;W nrhy;ypAk;> mq;F tpupj;J itj;jpUe;j ghapy; vdi; d js;sp jdJ ??Wg;ig vdJ ngz;?Wg;gpy; itj;J m?j;jpdhu;. ,Jgw;wp ntspapy; ahupl?k; nrhy;yf; ?lhJ vd;W nrhdd; hu;. ehd; mijg;gw;wp ntspapy; nrhd;dhy; vdJ mk;kh> mg;ghit nfhd;WtpLNtd ; vd;W kpul;bdhu;. mjd;gpd; mNj khjj;jpy; ehd; vdJ tPl;Lf;F gpd;dhy; ?L Nka;j;Jf;nfhz;bUe;jNghJ vjpup mq;F te;J> vdd; plk; tlP ;by; ahUk; cs;shu;fsh vdW; Nfl;L tlP ;by; ahUk; ,y;yhjNghJ vdi; d t?f;fl;lhakhf vd;Dld; cl?wT itj;Jf;nfhz;lhu;. mNjNghy Vg;uy; khjj;jp?k; gy?iw tPl;by; ahUk; ,y;yhjNghJ t?f;fl;lhakhf vd;Dld; cl?wT Crl.A(MD)No.821oofo2022 itj;Jf;nfhz;lhu;. vdf;F Nk khjj;jpy; mjpfkhf tapw;Wtyp> the;jp> kaf;fk; te;jJ mJgww; p vdJ mkk; htplk; nrhd;dNghJ vdJ mkk; h nkbf;fypy; khj;jpiu thq;fp nfhLj;jhu;> tapW typ> the;jp rupahftpy;iy. gpdd; u; Ntq;fhk;gl;bf;F nrd;W tapiw ?jp ghu;j;jhu;fs;. ,uzL; ehl;fs; edw; hf ,Ue;jJ. gpd; kPz;Lk; tapWtyp the;jp kaf;fk; ,Ue;jJ. vdJ mkk; h re;Njfg;glL;

07.07.2021 md;W vd;dplk; cdf;F jPl;LNgha; vt;tsT ehs; ?dJ vdW; Nfl;lhu;. vdJ gpwe;j ehshd 11.04.2021 md;W jlP ;LNghdjhf nrhd;Ndd;. mjd;gpd; jPl;LNghftpy;iy vd;W nrhd;Ndd. gpd; ehd; ele;jtwi; w vdJ mk;khtplk; ?wpNdd;. gpd;du;

08.07.2021 md;W vdJ mkk; h vd;id Fspj;jiy mu? kUj;Jtkidf;F mioj;J nrdw; hu;. mq;F kUj;Jtu; vdi; d ?;Nfd; nra;J ghu;j;J ehd; ?d;W khjk; fu;gkhf ,Ug;gjhf vdd; pl?k>; vdJ mkk; htpl?k; ?wpdhu;. gpwF vdJ mk;kh Fspj;jiy midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,J rk;ge;jkhf khiy 4.00 kzpf;F Gfhu; nfhLj;jhu;. Fspj;jiy kUj;JtkidapypUe;J Nky; rpfpri; rf;fhf fle;j

16.07.2021 md;W f?u; mu? kUj;Jf;fy;??up kUj;Jtkidf;F 108 ?k;Gyd;?; ?ykhf nrd;Nwhk;. mq;F vdf;F fUfiyg;G nra;ag;gll; J. gpd;

29.07.2021 md;W f?u; mu? kUj;JtkidapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;Nld;. gpd; 30.07.2021 md;W Fspj;jiy ejP pkd;wj;jpw;F nrd;W eLtuplk; tof;F rk;ge;jkhf thf;F%yk; mspj;Njd;."

¶10The victim girl's testimony is the most reliable evidence. Although it does not require corroboration, her deposition is supported by the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the medical evidence. After the FIR was registered, the victim girl was subjected to a medical examination by Dr. Kayathri. She advised the victim girl to undergo an ultrasound scan. On 17.07.2021, the victim underwent the ultrasound, which revealed that she was 13 to 14 weeks pregnant. Subsequently, on

23.07.2021, she experienced bleeding, and on 24.07.2021, her pregnancy was aborted. The foetus was later subjected to a DNA test. The discharge summary of the victim girl was marked as Ex.P5, and the Accident Register was recorded and marked as Ex.P7, in which she categorically stated that a known person had committed the aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. The DNA report was marked as Ex.P18. The report of the DNA is as follows:- "REPORT: DNA was extracted from the above item and amplified for amelogenin ie., sex locus and also for 15 STR loci using PCR Amplified STR Technique after taking due care for the integrity of the sample. The DNA profile of the above item, the comprehensive analysis of the test results of the above item with that of Alleged Accused Mr.Thirumurugan and Biological Mother Ms.Valli and the interpretations thereof are given in this office report cited in ref 2. The unexpended portion of the above item has been labelled as 'CNA/321/2021' for identification."

¶11It is clear that the DNA evidence also proved that the accused was responsible for her pregnancy. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the accused had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.1, who is the wife of the accused, deposed that the victim girl frequently visited their house, while the accused never went to the victim girl's house. She only had an acquaintance with the accused. Although the accused had examined D.W.1, this witness supports the prosecution's case and has proved that the accused committed the sexual offence against the victim girl. The accused is a married man and a father. He had absolute knowledge that the victim girl is a minor and even after knowing the said fact, he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the charges and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the age of the appellant, the sentence may be modified since he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment.

¶12Considering the age of the appellant, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 449 and 506 Part I of IPC are confirmed and conviction imposed on the appellant under section 6 of POCSO Act is confirmed and the sentence for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act alone is modified as 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment instead of Life Imprisonment.

¶13With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. [G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]

17.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes am To

1.The Additional Sessions Court, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AND

R. POORNIMA, J. am

17.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Crl.A(MD)No. 821 of 2022 S.Thirumurugan ... Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District. Crime No.10/2021. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2022 made in Spl.S.C.No.13/2022, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur and acquit the accused by allowing the present appeal. For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian for Mr.C.Mahadevan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor