Allowed

Sathish @ Pavadai v. State Rep by

Madras HC26 Nov 2025CRL A/931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to a consensual relationship evidenced in the minor's deposition, despite the victim being a minor at the time.

What did the court decide?

Accused acquitted of all charges. Appellant directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the victim within six weeks.

Sathish @ Pavadai Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶7

Sathish @ Pavadai S/O Murugesan, NO.6, Muthumariamman Kovil street, Vambakeerapalayam, Puducherry. Now confined in the Central Prison, Kalapat, Puducherry.

Appellant(s)

1. State Rep By

Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry. Cr.NO. 145/2016.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant on 02.09.2022 in Spl.SC.No.3 of 2017, on the file of the Special Court under the POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry and acquite the appellant.

¶14

For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.R.Thiyagu

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandramoorthy Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Pondy.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the conviction and

¶20

sentence imposed against the appellant on 02.09.2022 in Spl.SC.No.3 of 2017,

¶21

on the file of the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Puducherry.

¶22

By challenging the findings of the learned Trial Judge, the learned

¶23

counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:

¶24

(I) It is submitted that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is

¶25

erroneous, improper and illegal. The Learned Sessions Judge has totally failed

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶28

to consider the facts and evidence of the case.

¶29

(ii) It is submitted that the PW-1 is the mother of the victim girl as well as

¶30

de-facto complainant. She has two daughter and a son. She was deposed that

¶31

she was residing at Vambakkeerapalayam and working in a private School. PW-

¶32

2-victim girl is the younger daughter PW-1 accepted in her cross examination that she was deposed the chief examination based on the police instruction. Therefore the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and illegal and liable to be set-aside by the Hon'ble Court.

¶33

(iii) PW -2 Victim girl deposed in her chief examination that the accused

¶34

had proposed his love with the victim girl, initially she refused, after some time

¶35

she was accepted. Thereafter he was alleged committed the said offences in different places. From the evidence of PW-2, it is clearly proved that the victim girl was tutored by the mother as well as police. PW-2 accepted in her cross examination that she was deposed the chief examination based on the police pressure. Therefore the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and illegal and liable to be set-aside by the Hon'ble Court.

¶36

(iv) It is submitted that the victim girl date of birth is 22.3.2001 and the

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶39

date of alleged occurrence was took place on 18.8.2016. She was completed 16

¶40

years of her age. She has also revealed in her evidence that she accepted his

¶41

love. But the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory. Therefore the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and illegal and liable to be set-aside by the Hon'ble Court.

¶42

(v) It is submitted that the prosecution has examined PW-19 Dr.Sasirekha

¶43

to prove the sexual assault. But she deposed that on 31.8.2016 she examined the victim girl and issued the medical examination report Ex.P-24 by opinion that

¶44

"there is no evidence suggestive of forceful vaginal/ anal intercourse which neither refute nor confirm the forceful sexual intercourse/ assault". Therefore

¶45

the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and illegal and liable to be set-aside

¶46

by the Hon'ble Court.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution

¶48

has not proved the charges against the accused by any acceptable circumstantial

¶49

evidence. In spite of this, he was falsely implicated in the case involving the

¶50

victim. Hence, he prays that the findings of the trial Court be set aside.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶53

The prosecution raised objections stating that through the evidence of

¶54

P.W.6 and P.W.9, the case of the prosecution was clearly established, and based

¶55

on such evidence the learned Trial Judge rightly convicted the accused, which

¶56

requires no interference.

¶57

On considering the submissions on both sides, it is seen that on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 28 were examined and Exs.P1 to P39 were marked. On

¶58

the side of the defence, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Judge

¶59

concluded that the victim girl was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship, that

¶60

she was married, and that aggravated sexual assault was committed on her. Therefore, the accused was charged under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act,

¶61

as well as Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, since the victim

¶62

was a minor at the time of occurrence.

¶63

However, the evidence of the material witnesses - P.W.1 Sundari, the mother

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶66

of the victim girl, and P.W.2, the victim herself - requires close consideration.

¶67

On perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, she stated that her daughter voluntarily

¶68

left the house, and that she gave a statement to the police only at their instigation and as instructed by them. She further stated that the girl is now married and settled. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2, the victim girl, reveals that she had an affair with the accused; they eloped, travelled towards Malai, got married, and stayed in a hotel. Thus, the evidence indicates that the relationship was consensual, but this aspect was not properly appreciated by the Court below.

¶69

To attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, the essential requirements of law are not satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering the mental agony caused to the victim and her family, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the victim girl

¶70

within a period of six weeks.

¶71

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of all the charges.

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶74

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision is allowed.

¶75

26-11-2025

¶76

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri

¶77

¶78

1.State Rep By

¶79

Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry. Cr.NO. 145/2016.

¶80

2.The Special Court under the POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry.

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶83

T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rri

¶84

CRL A No. 931 of 2023

¶85

26-11-2025

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sathish @ Pavadai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish @ Pavadai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Yogaprashanth Vs S. Kumar

M/S.Monotech Systems Limited Vs Duraisingh

Thangaraj Vs T.Sidheshwaran

M/s.Emmaus Institute for Development Vs R.Rangarajan

Emmaus Institute for Development Vs R.Rangarajan

S.Dinakaran Vs S.Indhumathi