IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. MURUGANANDAM

S/o.Jayashankar, No.55-B, Old Neyveli Melpapanapattu, Virudachalam Union,

Cuddalore District.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep By Its,

The Inspector of Police, Neyveli

Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore

District. Cr.No.186 of 2020.

Respondent(s)

CRL A No. 165 of 2023

PRAYER

To call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and sentence dated 11.01.2023 by the Learned Special Court for POCSO CASES, CUDDALORE

IN SPL.S.C.No.37 of 2020 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

CRL A No. 165 of 2023

For Appellant(s): Mr.N.Raja, Legal Aid Counsel

----------

M/s. P.Muthamizhselvakumar-

ms/2571/2012

K. Ramesh

M. Jithendran A.Esakipandi

S. Ramesh Kumar P.Vignesh Kumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.V. Meganathan, Government Advocate (Crl.

Side)

Typed Set Filed

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records and to set aside the Judgment and sentence dated 11.01.2023 by the Learned Special Court for POCSO CASES, CUDDALORE IN SPL.S.C.No.37 of 2020 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that on 02.06. 2020, the victim slept at her home. The following morning, she discovered the victim was missing. She informed one Mr. Palanivel to search for her. Subsequently, the victim called Palanivel and stated she was standing at the Mandharakuppam bus stand. When they reached the bus stand, they found the victim there. The victim stated that the appellant/accused had asked her to accompany him for the purpose of solemnizing their marriage. Believing his words, she left her home at midnight. He took her to an NLC stream area where, under the promise of marriage, he engaged in sexual cohabitation with her. Afterwards, he took her to the Mandharakuppam bus stand and told her to wait while he allegedly made marriage arrangements. When he failed to return after several hours, the victim called her uncle to inform him of the situation. Based on the complainant lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered FIR in crime No. 186 of 2020 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the Trial Court and same was taken on file in S.C No. 37 of 2020. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial court convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 366 IPC r/w 3 and 4 of POCSO and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds:

i. The judgement of the Trial Court based on surmises and conjectures and not on the evidence on record leading to give perverse fiindings to record conviction.

ii. The learned Trial judge failed to note that PW.1 used talk to appellant over the phone and she had seen appellant on the fateful night for the first time. Further, she admits never met appellant earlier, no prudent men could believe on the first meeting that in odd hour of mid night, no one would go behind person and indulge in such an act of intercourse.

iii. The learned Trial Judge failed to read the cross examination in proper sense(page no. 42 last 3 lines of judgment),when the specifice question posed to so called victim, '' do you know person talked to you over phone is the same person who picked up on mid night''. Answer from victim, person talked over phone said that he will wait out side at her house at mid night with cycle, when she seen outside her house she found person standing with cycle and went with him. This answer would speak volume about her character and moral she possess.

iv. The learned Trial judge failed to take judicial notice that for the first time so called victim meeting a person in mid night that t