IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN IN CRL A NO. 81 OF 2022 Murali S/O.Pillappa, Vanniyar Street, Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police The Inspector Of Police, Denkanikottai, All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No.15/2017.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to permit the petitioner to adduce the additional evidence such as to the Head Master of Kelamangalam Higher Secondary School to come and depose evidence before the Hon’ble High Court along with the records relating to the N.Chandrika D/o. Nagaraju more particularly, Transfer Certificate issued by the Government Higher Secondary School Kelamangalam in Sl.No.277/2017-18 on 17.11.2017 and Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by State Board of School Examination in Certificate Sl.No.3646947 dated 23.05.2014 with Register Number of the Child as 2189049 in Crl.A.No.81 of 2022 and mark the same as Exhibits in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri dated 18.08.2021.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Rajamohan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 432 of BNSS seeking to adduce additional evidence.

2. The petitioner / appellant was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 366 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and was sentenced for a period of 10 years. Assailing the judgment dated

18.08.2021, the accused preferred the above appeal in Crl.A.No.81 of 2022.

3. In the appeal now the petitioner / appellant has come out with the present petition filed under Section 432 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 391 Cr.P.C.), seeking to produce additional evidence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant submitted that in the trial, in order to prove that the age of the victim is above 18 years and the victim is not a child within the meaning of Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, the accused had examined the Headmaster of the school as D.W.2 and also examined himself as D.W.3 and had marked Exs.D1 and D2 which the admission register and attendance register of the victim.

5. Though as per the evidence of the Headmaster – D.W.2 and the documents marked in Exs.D1 and D2, the appellant had established the date of birth of the victim as 28.06.1999, based on which, the victim would not be a child on the date of occurrence. However, the trial Court had gone by the birth certificate filed on the side of the prosecution in Ex.P11 and came to the conclusion that the date of birth of the child is 30.10.1999 and that thereby, concluded that the victim was a child and convicted the appellant.

6. It is submitted that the Matriculation School Certificate of the victim child is now available and a copy of which is produced before this Court showing the date of birth of the child as 28.06.1999.

7. He further submitted that in view of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the matriculation certificate of the victim will take precedence over the birth certificate and for ascertaining the age of the victim, the same provision is to be applied under POCSO Act also, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Yuvaprakash Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846. Only since this mark certificate was not available during trial, in spite of the efforts taken by the appellant in producing other materials and examining the witness, the mark certificate which is now sought to be produced as additional evidence, was not produced during trial. The document sought to be produced is a material piece of evidence which would alter the entire case as the victim is not at all a child on the date of occurrence.

8. Opposing the peti