IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN & Crl.M.P.No.4004 of 2023 Kumar Vadivel S/o. Raji (late), D.No.14/140 J 6, Halan Nagar, Ketti, Ooty, Nilgiris.

Appellant(s)

Vs State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ooty Town, Nilgiris (Crime No.1 of 2020)

Respondent(s)

PRAYER This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment dated 09.02.2023 made in Spl.C.C.No.25 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgirison.

For Appellant(s): Mr. T.Dhamodharan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act.

2(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant, who was a tailor, had committed sexual assault on the victim girl, who was 12 years old at the time of occurrence by inappropriately touching her private parts and kissing her chest and also fondling the other parts of her body, when the victim girl approached him for altering the dress belonging to her sister.

(ii) On the complaint given by the victim’s mother PW2, an FIR was registered in Crime No.1 of 2020 for the offences under Section 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. PW13, the Head Constable registered the FIR and investigation was conducted by PW15, the Inspector of Police. PW15, examined the witnesses and made arrangements to subject the victim to medical examination and after conclusion of the investigation, had filed the final report for the offences under Section 7, 8 and 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 7, 8 and 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(iii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15, marked 16 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P16. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of the defence, the appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.

(iv) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, and held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 9 (m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and did not impose any punishment for the offense under Sections 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act, as the petitioner was convicted for the offenses under Section 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the accused/appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3.Heard Mr.T.Dhamodharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4. Mr.T.Dhamodharan, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim cannot be believed; that the complaint was lodged at the instance of PW5, who was a Pastor and had enmity with the appellant, since the appellant had protested against PW5 for involving himself in religious conversion; that all the witnesses have been tutored; and that therefore, the trial Court ought not to have found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the defence that the appellant and PW5 had a strained relationship and only because of that, the instant complaint has been lodged has not been probablised by the appellant; that the evidence of the victim, which i