IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Sasiraj Appellant(s)

Vs The Inspector of Police, Neyveli All Women Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No.17/2021.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore and set aside the judgment dated 30.01.2023 made in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022.

For Appellant(s): Mr. P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal challenges judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide judgment passed on 30.01.2023, in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Cuddalore, for the alleged offences under section 366 IPC and section 5(1) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant aged about 19 years (though wrongly stated as 24 in the charge sheet) had sexual intercourse with the victim, born on 16.12.2006, aged about 15 years, on 10.04.2021, 01.09.2021 and 08.09.2021 and thereafter, on several occasions and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3.The case of the prosecution is that since the victim girl went missing, the mother of the victim girl PW2 had lodged a complaint on 09.09.2021 and the same was registered in crime No.17 of 2021, Ex.P15. The complaint was registered by PW12 and thereafter investigation was conducted by PW13. The statement of the victim PW1 was recorded under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2021 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjiapadi. The victim was subjected to medical examination by a Doctor PW5. After examination of all other witnesses, PW13 filed a final report before the Special Court for POCSO cases, Cuddalore, for the offences under section

366 IPC and section 5(1) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act.

4.On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charges against the accused. The appellant was charged for the offences under section 366 IPC and section 5(1) r/w section 6 of POCSO Act. The first charge framed against the appellant was under section 366 IPC and the second charge was under section 5(1) r/w section

6 of the POCSO Act and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

5.To prove the case, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MO 1. The defendant had examined DW 1 and DW2. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.

6.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt and held that the appellant is found guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Sections 5(1) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal.

7.Heard Mr. P.Muthamizhselvakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Rajakumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly, it is a case of love affair between the appellant, who was aged 19 years and the victim, who was aged 15 years at the time of occurrence; that the victim has not stated about the alleged penetrative sexual assault in her statement before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate in her statement under section 164 (5) Cr.P.C.; that the allegation of p