Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2052
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
Mohammed Ushen - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2026, Crl.M.P(MD)No.1107 of 2026
Decided On : 18-02-2026
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor
The conviction for serious sexual offences against a minor was upheld due to substantial corroborative evidence from medical reports, eyewitness testimony, and DNA analysis linking the accused to the crime.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(h), 5(L), 6(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 457, 342, 397, 506 Part II - Conviction and sentence for serious offences including penetrative sexual assault against a minor victim and robbery - Prosecution provided corroborative medical evidence and testimonies - Accused's confession and habitual offending status established clear links to charges. (Paras 5, 11, 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Statement of the victim was recorded under this section, supporting conviction. (Parag 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for multiple serious offences, including penetrative sexual assault against a minor and robbery. Evidence included corroborative statements, medical reports, and DNA analysis linking the accused to the crimes.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the trial court's conviction citing sufficient evidence contradicting the claims of reasonable doubt raised by the defense.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt, given the appellant's defense claiming lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the evidence presented, including medical and eyewitness accounts, sufficiently satisfied the evidentiary requirements to uphold convictions under both the POCSO Act and IPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges and initial prosecution details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's findings and basis for conviction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's defense questioning the validity of evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. prosecution's counterarguments supporting the case. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidence and supporting testimonies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final observations on evidence reliability and decision affirmation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. reiterating the need for police protection due to the accused's history. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. conclusion of appeal with dismissal. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2023, dated 06.11.2024, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 5(h), 5(L) read with 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act') and457, 342, 397 and 506 Part II of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution was that the accused is a habitual offender and committed several crimes. While being so, on 27.09.2022 at about 03.30 hours, the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant by breaking open the door with an iron rod and robbed gold jewelry weighing 1-1/4 sovereigns, putting her in fear of death. During the said incident, he tore the bedsheet and tied the hands and legs of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, he confined her in her room and went to the room of the minor victim girl, where she was sleeping. He carried an iron rod and threatened to kill her mother if she did not cooperate with him. Then, he had forcibly removed her dress and committed penetrative sexual assault against her. He also compelled the victim girl to apply her mouth to his penis and had committed penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl more than once. He had also applied his mouth to the vagina of the victim girl and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He also threatened the victim girl not to reveal the occurrence to anyone.
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R.After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 397, 450, 342 and 506 Part II of I.P.C and also under Section 5(L), 5(h), 3(d) read with 6(1) of POCSO Act. On receipt of the same, the Trial Court had taken cognizance and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 397, 342, 450 and 506 Part II of I.P.C and under l Sections 5(h), 5(l) read with 6(1) of POCSO Act.
4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and Exs.P1 to P.26 were marked. The prosecution had examined Materials Objects M.O.1 to M.O.9. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable l under Sections 5(h), 5(l) read with 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and 457, 342, 397 and 506 Part II of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable l under Section 5(h), 5(l) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 ii) he was sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months Simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 457 of I.P.C iii) he was sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months Simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC iv) he was sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple imprisonment for the offe
