IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

E.Azarudeen Appellant(s)

Vs

The State Represented by

The Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station,

Coimbatore District.

Crime No. 1170 of 2020.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment and conviction and passed in Spl.CC.No.13/2021 dated 17.03.2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore and allow the Appeal throughout

by acquitting the appellant.

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Bharanidharan

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajakumar

Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and sentence

imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections 450 IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2.The gist of the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant had love affair with the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with the victim girl when she was a minor and thereafter, the victim girl became pregnant; that the appellant married the victim girl when she was a minor and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3.On the complaint given by the Child Protection Officer PW6, an FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, PW13 and the same was marked as Ex.P11; that the Inspector of Police, PW14 took up investigation and after subjecting the victim to medical examination, taken steps to record statement of the victim under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C.; that after examination of all the witnesses, PW14 had filed the final report.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses PW1 to PW14 and marked Exs.P1 to P16. Ex.C1 was also marked. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

5.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo twenty years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; under Section 450 IPC to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the instant appeal.

6.Heard Mr.S.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Rajakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim had married the appellant; that three children were born out of the wedlock; that the trial Court had observed that the victim had married the appellant and still the trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences; that the victim has now filed an affidavit stating that she is living happily with the appellant and hence, the impugned judgment may be set aside.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor confirms the fact that the victim had married the appellant and three children were born out of the wedlock and fairly submitted that all the witnesses, other than the official witnesses, turned hostile.

9.It is seen from the records that PW1 victim was treated hostile by the prosecution as she had not supported the prosecution case. PW2 father, PW 3 mother and PW4 brother also turned hostile. PW 5 and PW6, Child Protection Officers speak about lodging of the complaint. PW7, who is the uncle of the victim girl also turned hostile. PW8 is the Doctor who had examined the accused/appellant and issued a