Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. R.N. Manjula, J
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Karur – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.J.William Christopher
For the Respondent:Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.side)

The court ruled that the failure to adequately prove the victim's age and the existence of a consensual relationship necessitated the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 366 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 5(I) r/w 6 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2012 - Conviction of accused for kidnapping and sexual assault - Evidence regarding victim’s age and consensual relationship considered - Prosecution failed to prove victim's age was below 18 and absence of corroborative documents led to conclusion that the relationship was consensual; thus, conviction set aside. (Paras 6, 21, 23, 24)

(B) The court emphasized that the prosecution holds the burden of proof to establish the weight of evidence regarding age determination in sexual offences against minors, affirming that if reasonable doubt exists, it must favor the accused. (Paras 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping and sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl. The trial court based its decision on conflicting documents regarding her age without proper evaluation of available evidence.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court held that the age of the victim was not adequately established and the relationship was consensual, leading to the conclusion of a wrongful conviction.

Issues: The primary issues included the proper determination of the victim's age and the nature of the relationship between the victim and the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the victim was underage, which cast doubt on the conviction; the burden remains on the prosecution to establish the age of the victim in such cases.

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenging conviction and its foundations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. conviction based on age-related evidence and issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's observation on victim's age determination. (Para 9 , 10)
4. emphasis on proper evidence for age-related claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. doubt concerning victim's age impacts prosecution burden. (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
6. outcome based on consensual nature of relationship. (Para 20 , 21 , 23)
7. final ruling leading to acquittal. (Para 22 , 24)

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, in S.C.No.2 of2016, dated 08.03.2017.

2. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence under Sections 366 IPC , Section 5 (I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and sentenced to undergo the punishment as under:

Offence u/s	Punishment
366 IPC	10 years(R.I) and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)
5(I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act	10 years (R.I) and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)
4 of TNPHW Act	3 years (R.I and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)

3. On 01.06.2014, at about 08.30 am., the appellant/A1 alleged to have kidnapped the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years old, to his house and committed penetrative sexual assault against her consent. A2 to A5 have also facilitated the offence by way of beating, scolding and outraging her modesty and confined her illegally in a house. So, a complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant/P.W.1, mother of the victim girl.

4. On completion of investigation, final report has been filed by the respondent police before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. The accused were arrested and produced before the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur. The Accused were furnished with copies of the final report. After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence, the learned Trial Judge found the appellant/A1 guilty for the offences under Sections Section 366 IPC , Section 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2012.

5. When the accused was questioned, he denied guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and thirteen documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Besides, MO1 was also marked. On the side of the defence, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and two documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D2.

6. After full-pledged trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted A2 to A5 from all charges levelled against them and acquitted the appellant/A1 only for the offence under Section 342 of IPC , but convicted and sentenced the appellant/A1 as under:

Offence u/s	Punishment
366 IPC	10 years (R.I) and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)
5(I) r/w 6 of POCSO Act	10 years (R.I) and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)
4 of TNPHW Act	3 years (R.I and a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d six months (S.I)

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 raised the preliminary point of the age of the victim that she will not fall under the definition of child under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act. It is submitted that the school record of the victim girl would show that her date of birth is 18.07.1996, but the birth certificate issued by the corporation shows that her date of birth is05.06.1997.

8. According to Section 34(2) of POCSO Act, whenever question arise as to the age of a child and a person is a child or not, the said question shall be determined. Section 34(1) of the POCSO Act outlines the procedure for dealing with offences committed by children. Specifically, it states that if an offence under the POCSO Act is committed by a child, the child shall be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The age of such person shall be determined by obtaining the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDr. R.N. Manjula, JSaravanan – AppellantVersusThe Inspector of Police, AWPS, Karur – RespondentCrl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2017

The court ruled that the failure to adequately prove the victim's age and the existence of a consensual relationship necessitated the acquittal of the accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. R.N. Manjula, J
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Karur – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.129 of 2017