IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Elangovan ..Appellant/Sole Accused Vs.

The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Avinasi All Women Police Station, Crime No.5 of 2022. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence against the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandaram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur dated 30.01.2023 and allow this appeal.

For Appellant :: Mr.B.Shruthan For Respondent :: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Section 376 AB of IPC and under Section 5(i) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act.

2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is known to the victim girl aged about 2 years; that when the victim girl was playing in the room of the appellant, the appellant had removed the undergarment of the victim girl and had inserted his finger in the private part of the victim girl and thus committed the offences under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act.

(ii) On the complaint given by PW2, the mother of the victim girl, an FIR was registered by PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police for the offences under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act in Crime No.5/2022. The FIR was marked as Ext.P13. PW11 took up the investigation, subjected the victim to medical examination and after recording the statements of the witnesses, had filed the final report against the appellant under Sections

5(m) r/w 6, 3(b) r/w 4(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 376 (AB) of IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 5(m) r/w 6, 3(b) r/w 4(1), 5(i) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 AB of IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(iii) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 16 documents to prove its case. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.

(iv) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, and held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 5(i) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 376 AB of IPC. The Trial Court sentenced him to undergo 20 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, (id), to undergo 1 year RI for the offence under Section 5(i) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and also sentenced him to undergo 20 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000, (id), to undergo one year RI for the offense under 376 AB of IPC.

Hence, the accused/appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3.Heard Mr.B.Shruthan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr.S.Raja Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4.Mr.B.Shruthan, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim's mother had never stated in her earlier version, including in her complaint, that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault or rape; that the allegations with regard to the offence of penetrative sexual assault is an afterthought; that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant had committed the offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault; that the medical evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW2; and that the victim had not stated about any of the alleged occurrences in her deposition and therefore, the impugned Judgment convicting the appellant under Section 5(i) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that the complainant had stated in her complaint that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the