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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ILANGOVAN, J
Ajith Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponmalai, Trichy – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Vinayagan
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

In criminal law, mere suspicion cannot equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.

Headnote:This Criminal Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence based on a report filed after an alleged incident involving the appellant and a victim under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court found doubts regarding the evidence presented and noted that it was insufficient for a conviction. The court concluded that mere suspicion cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the appeal resulted in the acquittal of the appellant, setting aside the lower court's judgment.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserved 30/10/2024 Date of Pronounced 30/01/2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.A(MD)No.229 of 2019 Ajith Kumar : Appellants/Accused (single)

Vs.

State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponmalai, Trichy.

(In Crime No.17 of 2018) : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section

374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to Special SC No.60 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, dated 24/04/2019 and set aside the conviction and sentence by acquitting the appellant.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinayagan For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side) J U D G M E N T This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special SC No.60 of 2018, dated 24/04/2019 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The de-facto complainant namely Gayathri is the resident of Bharathy Nagar, Airport, Trichy. She is doing 1st year of B.Com at M.I.E.T College, Trichy. When she is doing her 12th Standard, the accused became her friend. They spoke daily through mobile phone. At this juncture, the de- facto complainant joined B.Com Degree at M.I.E.T College, Trichy and wanted to discontinue the friendship. Due to which, she did not meet the accused for sometime. Thereafter when the accused met her, she was abused in filthy language. On 24/09/2016, the accused alleged to have edited the photo of the de-facto complainant from her Face- Book D.P and included his photo with her and uploaded the same in the whatsapp. On seeing the above said picture, the de-facto complainant went to the house of the accused on 25/09/2018 at about 10.00 am and questioned the attitude of the accused. On 26/09/2018 at about 12.00 noon the brother of the de-facto complainant went to Muniswamy Temple, at that time, there was wordy altercation between the brother of the de-facto complainant and the accused and he was also threatened by the accused with dire consequences. Upon the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.17 of 2018 was registered by the respondent police for the offence under section 11 r/w 12 of POSCO Act and section 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. After completing the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken cognizance in Special SC No.60 of 2018 by the Mahila Court, Tricy. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused:-

(i)When the de-facto complainant doing her 12th Standard, the accused became her friend; after completing the school education, she joined in a private college at Trichy; so, the accused followed her and compelled to love him; when the de-facto complainant refused, the accused restrained and teased her, thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 354(D) of IPC;

(ii)In continuation of the above said occurrence, on 24/09/2016, the accused said to have edited the photo of the de- facto complainant from the Face-Book D.P and included his photo with her and uploaded the same in the Whatsapp; On seeing the same, the de-facto complainant along with her brother went to the house of the accused on 25/09/2018 at about 10.00 a.m and questioned the attitude, the accused abused her brother in filthy language and thereby he committed an offence punishable under section 294(b)

IPC;

(iii)In furtherance of the above said occurrence, there was wordy altercation between the brother of the de-facto complainant and the accused, the accused threatened the brother of the de-facto complainant with dire consequence, thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 506(i) IPC; and (iv)In continuation of the above said occurrence, the accused edited the photo of the de-facto complainant from her Face-Book D.P and include his photo with her and uploaded the same in the whatsapp and thereby, the accused committed an offence und

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