IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Sundar Raj ... Appellant/Accused Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Naduveerapattu Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.1074 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2021 dated 27.10.2022, Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2021 dated 27.10.2022 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore.

2. The appellant was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Section 366 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and sentenced as follows:

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the victim girl born on

20.07.2004 and the appellant aged 28 years had a love affair; that on 11.10.2020, the appellant had asked the victim girl to go along with him; that on 12.10.2020, the victim girl went along with the appellant; that on 13.10.2020, the appellant had married her by tying “thali” and that he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and thus committed the aforesaid offence.

4. On the complaint given by P.W2 - Father of the victim girl, a case was registered in Crime No.1074 of 2020 for “girl missing” and subsequently altered to offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act, 2006. P.W9 had registered the F.I.R. P.W10 commenced the investigation. Thereafter, the investigation was concluded by P.W.12, who filed the final report for the offences under Sections 366 IPC, Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act and Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act.

5. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him for the offence under Section 366 IPC as stated above. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside; that the victim's evidence cannot be believed, inasmuch as she had made contradictory statements at various stages during the investigation and in the trial; that admittedly, the appellant and the victim had a love affair and their relationship was consensual; and that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the victim, which does not inspire confidence and prayed for acquittal of the accused.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, per contra, would submit that though it is the case of the prosecution that it was consensual relationship, the consent of the minor girl is immaterial; that the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution conclusively establish that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim girl, who was then a minor; and that therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. P.W1 is the victim. P.W2 is the father and defacto co