IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Selvakumar S/o. Murugesan, No.41, Thiruvandhipuram, Tolgate, Little Kancheepuram.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep.By The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Kancheepuram. Cr.No.7/2018.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court foe Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Cases in Spl.Case No.170 of

2019.

For Appellant(s): M/s. M.G.Udayashankar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the Judgment dated 23.06.2023 in Spl.Case.No.170 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act cases, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC and also under Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act” ), and sentenced him as follows:

2.(a) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the victim belonged to the same village; that they were known to each other and had a love affair; that on the promise of marriage, the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim on 23.12.2017 and thereafter on several occasions; that the victim was aged 15 years at the time of occurrence; that the victim became pregnant and on 21.08.2018 she delivered a child and that a complaint was lodged on

28.11.2018 by the victim.

(b) P.W.12 - Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police had registered FIR in Cr.No.7 of 2018 for the offences under Section 363, 366 IPC and Section 6 r/w. 5(l) of POCSO Act. She conducted the investigation and arrested the appellant. Thereafter, she handed over the investigation to P.W.13 who filed the final report for the offences under Section 363, 365, 366A, 376 (2) (n), 417 IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The trial Court had framed two charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 366 and Section

6 r/w. 5(l) of the POCSO Act.

(c) The prosecution had examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, found the appellant guilty of both the charges and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1 of this Judgment.

3. Mr.M.G.Udayashankar, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused, would submit that the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the victim; that the victim’s evidence does not inspire confidence; that the evidence of her mother - P.W.2 is also improbable and that for the alleged occurrence that had took place on 23.12.2017, the complaint was lodged only on 28.11.2018; that the Investigation Officer would show that no effort was taken by P.W.2 or P.W.1 to question the appellant after P.W.2 came to know of the pregnancy or lodge a complaint against him; and that the DNA report had ruled out the paternity of the appellant; that the impugned Judgment is therefore liable to be set aside, and he prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

4. Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the delay in a case of this nature is not fatal to the prosecution; that the DNA report is not conclusive; that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the other witnesses would show that a Panchayat was held and since the appellant refused to marry the victim, the complaint was lodged; and that since the evidence of victim inspires confidence, the impugned judgment does not call for any i