IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 20-01-2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL A No. 235 of 2023 Devaraj .. Appellant/A1 Vs State Rep By The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

Cr.No.6 of 2021. .. Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and order passed on the appellant / A1 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri by a judgment dated 16.02.2023 made in Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2021 and to acquit the appellant/A1.

For Appellant: Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Judgment

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.1, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 vide judgment dated 16.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.22 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

2 (i) The gist of the prosecution case is that the victim girl aged 14 years at the time of occurrence had a love affair with the appellant herein; that pursuant to the love affair, they got married and lived together; that when the victim became pregnant, she was taken to hospital for treatment; that since the victim was a minor, on information by the hospital authorities, a complaint [Ex.P1] was lodged by the Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Krishnagiri [PW1], which was registered as an FIR [Ex.P22] in Cr.No. 6 of 2021 by the Inspector of Police [PW26] for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 against the appellant [A1], his sister [A2] and his parents [A3 and A4].

(ii) After completion of investigation, PW26 filed the final report against the accused for the offence under Sections 363, 366 of the IPC r/w Sections 5(l)(j)(ii), 6, 17 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

(iii) During the course of the investigation, the victim and the appellant were subjected to medical examination and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl.

(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section

207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 366 of the IPC, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 5(l)(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and against the other accused/A2 to A4 for the offences under Section 11 r/w 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 26 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.26 and marked 35 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P35. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that A2 to A4 were not guilty of any of the charges framed against them and found that the appellant/A1 was guilty of the offences under Section 366 of the IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and sentenced him as stated below.

Hence, A1 has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim and the appellant were living together as husband