BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 13.08.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.A(MD)No.383 of 2018 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras – 104.

Crime No.28 of 2013 of Tirunelveli Town All Women Police Station ... Petitioner Vs

1. Selvan

2. Dr. G. Meenakshi ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal Judgment, dated 16.02.2016 in Special Case No.16 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli and to convict the respondents/accused (A1, A2) as charged.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mr.R.Anand (R1)

Mr.G.Dhanapal (R2)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, in Spl.Case No.16 of 2015, dated 16.02.2016.

2. The appellant is the State and the appeal is against the judgment of acquittal.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the father/P.W.2 of the victim girl, P.W.1, who was 16 years old at the time of occurrence and she was studying in XI standard. The first accused is a Pastor at the Church, where the defacto complainant was a member of the choir. During the second Saturday of July 2013, after the prayer, the first accused asked the victim to come to his bungalow to write songs after lunch. As instructed, she went to the first accused's bungalow, where she found no person to write songs. At that time, the first accused pulled the victim girl inside and locked the door and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened her that if she did not come to Church as usual, he would kill her father. On such threat, the first accused has committed repeated sexual assault on her on several occasions and due to which, the victim girl became pregnant. When this was informed to the defacto complainant, he took the victim child and went to the residence of the first accused to question him. The first accused thereby intimidated the defacto complainant and victim child to go to the hospital where the second accused, who is the Doctor, would perform an abortion on her fetus. The father and mother of the victim girl took her to the hospital and admitted her on 15.12.2013, where she underwent medical termination of pregnancy and the fetus was disposed.

4. On the complaint given by P.W.1, case was registered and taken up for investigation. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act as against the first accused and for the offence under Section 315 of IPC as against the second accused.

5. After the case was taken up for cognizance, the accused were subjected to trial. The trial Court found the first and second accused were not found guilty for the charges and acquitted them.

Aggrieved over the same, the State has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the scientific evidence and DNA report would confirm that the first accused is the father of the fetus carried by P.W.1, that was not considered by the trial Court. The learned trial Judge has observed that the prosecution did not prove that the blood sample of the first accused has been collected in a proper manner for the purpose of sending it to DNA analysis. It is observed by the learned trial Judge that P.W.14, Doctor, has stated in his evidence that the bone sample of exhumation have been sent for DNA analysis, as regards the collection of blood from the accused, he has simply stated that his blood sample has been sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory and he has not stated that the blood sample of P.W.1 and the first accused has been taken for the purpose of conducting the paternity test.

6.1.It is further stated that the trial Court observed that P.W.

20 had not produced any document to show that a due request was