The main legal point established is that in cases involving offenses under the POCSO Act and IPC, the court must assess whether there is a strong suspicion of the accused's involvement based on the evidence and legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 of 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2020, on the file of Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, in Crime No.343 of 2019, dated 22.03.2022, before the W.24, AWPS.)

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, dated 22.03.2022 in Crl.MP.No.1231 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.110 of 2020, in and by which the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case was rejected by the learned Magistrate.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was aged 16 years at the time of occurrence in the year 2019. She was a school dropout and was working in a Super Market. Upon repeated insistence and pressure by the petitioner/accused, she accepted the love proposal made by him and both were in a relationship. Thereafter, on 28.09.2019, the petitioner/accused pressurized the victim and the victim also went along with him on a promise that they can get married and live together. Thereafter, they went up to the Mazhaiyur Village at Chetpet Taluk, in Thiruvannamalai District, where they stayed in a friend's house through the night and during the night, the petitioner/accused tried to hug her, but, she refused. The next day, when they went to Chetpet town, there at the bus stop, the victim/child was rescued by the Police.

3.The discharge application was filed on the ground that even taking the allegations on face value, absolutely neither the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 nor the offence under Sections 354A, 354D, and 366 of IPC., is made out. The learned Counsel also submitted that now, the girl has crossed the age of 18 years and that she is also willing to live with that boy. The victim girl was also present before this Court on 20.07.2022, and submitted that even though she voluntarily went along with the petitioner being in a love affair with him, currently, she does not want to get married to the petitioner. And further, she expressed that she wants to have two years time to decide for herself as to what she wants to do. In that view, the matter was again posted for arguments on the merits of the case. Thereafter, the learned Counsel also argued the matter.

4. Ms.A.Veeramarthini, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be very clear that even taking the victim statement, she accepted the love affair proposal of the petitioner and went away with him voluntarily. Further, she would submit that once the love proposal is accepted by the girl, both of them were having contact and P.W.1/mother of the victim girl even stopped the victim girl from going to work, then the offences under Sections 354 A & 354D of IPC, are not made out. Similarly, when the girl has left along with the petitioner on her own volition, then the offence under Section 366 of IPC, is also not made out. Absolutely, there are no sexual acts, which were spoken by the victim girl. Therefore, the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is not made out. She would further submit that even taking the statements of the victim and other witnesses on record on the face value, still, the offences are not made out. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for discharge.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that in this case, in any event, the victim was less than 18 years of age. Therefore, the offence under Section 366 of IPC., is made out and the sexual intent is to be presumed against the petitioner and therefore, even the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is also made out. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material