SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
M. Manibharathi, S/o. Velu @ Murugavel – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam – Respondent
Crl. A. No.338 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Muthamizhselvakumar, Mr. V. Perarasu, Amicus curiae
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. Arifa Thasneem.

The court affirmed that evidence from birth certificates and credible witness testimonies sufficiently established the victim's age and the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault, meeting the prosecution's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6 r/w 5(l) and 10 r/w 9(l) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Conviction for penetrative sexual assault against minor - Correctness of age determination through birth certificate supported - Evidence corroborated by medical reports establishing assault. (Paras 2-18)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Grounds for appeal - The court evaluates evidence only to ascertain if the trial court's decision was afflicted by errors of law or fact, not to re-evaluate the evidence. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutor’s complaint stemmed from incidents occurring on 17.03.2015 where the appellant is accused of luring a minor, 'X', threatening her, and committing sexual assault. Following a search by the minor's parents, a police FIR was lodged, leading to the appellant's arrest and subsequent trial, resulting in conviction on the specified criminal charges.

Findings of Court:
The appellant was realistically assessed at 16 years old at the time of occurrence, as verified by multiple witnesses and documents; their cumulative evidence was held credible and reliable.

Issues: The primary issues involved were both the age verification of the minor at the time of the incident and the legitimacy of the prosecution’s evidence against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the credibility of the minor's testimony, substantiated by medical evidence, and ruled the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, dismissing the defense’s contentions of false allegations.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of factual background regarding the crime. (Para 2)
2. arguments from both sides regarding evidence and credibility. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observations on the evidence presented. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. detailed examination of witness credibility and consistency. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. analysis of opposing arguments on evidence discrepancies. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. court's final observations concluding the case. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Challenging the judgment dated 27.04.2021 passed in S.C.No.114 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court, Special Court under the POCSO Act, Nagapattinam, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 “X” (PW21) is the daughter of PW1 (mother) and PW2 (father) and her date of birth is 18.11.1998, to prove which, her birth certificate was marked as Ex.P22. PW4 and PW8 are the elder sister and brother of “X” (PW21), respectively. As PW2 has agricultural lands, PW1 and PW2 were doing agricultural works.

2.2 On 17.03.2015, when PW1 and PW2 were engaged in agricultural activity in their field, “X” (PW21) sat there and watched them. While so, around 3.00 p.m., the accused signalled “X” (PW21) to come near him and when “X” (PW21) went near him, he dragged her into his house, forcefully undressed her and inserted his finger into her vagina. When “X” (PW21) shouted, the accused threatened her by saying that he will kill her, if she disclose the occurrence to anybody. Then, “X” (PW21) adjusted her dress and went to the field, where, her parents were working. Thereafter, in the evening hours, when “X’s” (PW21’s) father (PW2) asked her to buy tea, she went to a tea shop owned by one Settu of the same village, but, Settu refused to give tea without money on credit basis and so, she returned. While “X” (PW21) was returning to the fields, the accused waylaid her and taken her to Azhiyan Channel by threatening her and the same was witnessed by PW3 and PW5. Around 6.30 p.m., the accused removed “X’s” (PW21’s) dresses, ravished her and left her in that place. “X” (PW21) heard the howling sound of the wolf in the dark and out of fear, she slept there itself. Later, one Azar of the same village came there, rescued her and taken to her home.

2.3 Meanwhile, PW1 and PW2, mother and father of “X” (PW1), respectively, started searching “X” (PW21). Since they were unable to find “X” (PW21), they went to Nagore Police Station on the same day around 9.00 p.m. and gave a complaint (Ex.P13) to the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW17), who assigned C.S.R.No.79 of 2015 (Ex.P19). PW17 with the help of Sniffer Dog Squad conducted search for “X” (PW21). During the search, PW17 found a shirt (M.O.1) and underwear (M.O.2) of “X” (PW21), which was identified by PW1 and PW2, under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P2). On the next day morning i.e. on 18.03.2015, they found “X” (PW21) in a helpless state in the land of one Elangovan situated South of Azhiyan Channel. They brought her home and asked her as to what had happened and “X” (PW21) narrated about the occurrence that took place the previous day. Hence, PW1 and PW2 took “X” (PW21) to the police station.

2.4 PW19, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam, recorded the complaint statement of “X” (PW21) (Ex.P1) and registered an FIR (Ex.P20) in Crime No.2 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 6 r/w 5(l) and 10 r/w 9(l) of the POCSO Act and handed over the case to PW18, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam, for further investigation.

2.5 PW18, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam, took up the investigation on 18.03.2015, went to the first place of occurrence around 12.45 hours, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P5) and rough sketch (Ex.P14) in the presence of witnesses PW7 and one Rajendiran. Thereafter, PW18 went to the second place of occurrence around 13.30 hours, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P4) and rough sketc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top