Advocates:
['M/S S N ARUNKUMAR', '', 'W CAMYLES GANDHI', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.A.No.356 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.No.356 of 2018

Sureshkumar

... Appellant/accused

Vs.

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Rasipuram Police Station,

Namakkal District

(crime No.493 of 2016)

... Respondent

PRAYER:

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 31.05.2018 passed in Spl.CC.No.32

of 2016 by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,

Government Advocate(crl.side)

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.356 of 2018

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is filed as against the judgment dated

31.05.2018 passed in Spl.CC.No.32 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions

(Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, thereby convicted the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and Section 305 r/w

116 of IPC.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the victim was aged about 16

years. Her parents were no more and she lived in her maternal aunt house. While

she was studying 10^th std at Government Girls Higher Secondary School at

Annasalai, Rasipuram, she used to go to school by walk. While being so, the

accused waylaid the victim to talk with him. The victim refused to talk with him

and it was informed to her family members. Thereafter, her uncle along with other

person went to the house of the accused and warned him. Even then, while the

victim was studying 12^th std in the year 2016 and while she was going to school by

her bicycle, the accused waylaid her and pulled her hand to love him. He also

threatened with the photograph of the victim to love him. Immediately, she

consumed 'all out' liquid (mosquito preventive poison). Unfortunately, she was

saved and lodged complaint. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent

registered FIR in crime No.493 of 2016 for the offence under Section 11 r/w 12 of

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.356 of 2018

POCSO Act and Section 305 r/w 116 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the

respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence

under Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and Section 305 r/w 116 of IPC in

Spl.CC.No.32 of 2016.

3.

On the side of the prosecution, examined PW1 to PW14 and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On the side of the accused, examined DW1 and DW2 and

marked Ex.D1 series. On the side of the prosecution, they produced cell phone as

material object i.e. MO1. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial

court found him guilty for the offence under Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act

sentencing to undergo two years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/-

, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and for the offence under

Section 305 r/w 116 of IPC sentencing to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim

only fell in love with the appellant. She had written love letter including by her own

blood which was marked as Ex.D1. Unfortunately the trial court did not even

discuss about Ex.D1 and no reason stated to disbelieve the case of the appellant.

Originally the victim fell in love with the appellant. When it came to the knowledge

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.356 of 2018

of her family members, she consumed 'all out' liquid only to threaten her family

members since she consumed only little bit of liquid and she went to school. It was

reacted later and started vomiting. Immediately, she was admitted into hospital and

she was treated as in-patient for four days. In fact, she did not even whisper before

the doctor about the reason for consuming the 'all out liquid'. The said doctor who

treated