Dismissed¶96

Premkumar v. State Represented by

Madras HC2 Jan 2026CRL A/48/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

POCSO aggravated penetrative sexual assault appeal dismissed Madras High Court; age of victim proved by birth certificate Ex.P.3, bona fide certificate Ex.P.14, radiological report Ex.P.6 above 16 below 18, Section 2(d) POCSO; DNA test report Ex.P.22 biological paternity; Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement consistency; minor contradictions not material; maximum punishment life imprisonment upheld; Section 506(i) IPC; concurrent sentences; set-off Section 428 Cr.P.C.; Crime No.2 of 2017 AWPS Gandhipuram Coimbatore; Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018 Mahalir Neethimandram; charge amendment Section 216(1) Cr.P.C.; Crl.A.No.48 of 2020 decided 02.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

None - the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the trial Court's conviction and sentence stand. ¶96

Premkumar Vs State Represented by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the trial Court's conviction and sentence stand.

¶96

Issue for consideration

Whether the contradictions and discrepancies between the victim's complaint, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are material enough to discredit the prosecution case. +3 more

¶37

Court's answer

The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the appellant's counsel are minor and not material; they neither go into the root of the matter nor affect the case of the prosecution.

¶87

Ratio / Principle

The victim's account of penetrative sexual assault by the appellant is categorically and consistently stated in her complaint, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her deposition.

¶86

Key takeaways

The victim's date of birth is established as 02.07.2000 from Ex.P.3 birth certificate, Ex.P.14 bona fide certificate issued by the Head Master based on the 10th mark sheet, and Ex.P.6 radiological report certifying age above 16 and below 18; the occurrence being in the second week of August 2016, the prosecution proved the victim had not completed 18 years and was a child at the time of occurrence under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act.ratio¶80
On a reading of the oral and documentary evidence, especially the victim's evidence, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the doctors' evidence and medical records including the DNA test report, the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who was a child under the definition of POCSO Act.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Order by P.Velmurugan, J; bench incl. M.Jothiraman, J), 02.01.2026, dismisses Crl.A.No.48 of 2020 challenging conviction/sentence dated 26.11.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018 (Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore) under Sections 5(l) & (j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 (life imprisonment + Rs.10,000/- fine) and Section 506(i) IPC (2 years R.I. + Rs.1000/- fine), sentences concurrent, set-off under S.428 Cr.P.C. Held: (i) victim's date of birth 02.07.2000 proved by birth certificate Ex.P.3, Head Master's bona fide certificate Ex.P.14 (based on 10th mark sheet) and radiological report Ex.P.6 (age above 16, below 18); occurrence in second week of August 2016 - she was a child under S.2(d) POCSO Act; (ii) complaint, S.164 Cr.P.C. statement and deposition consistently prove penetrative sexual assault, and DNA report Ex.P.22 proves the appellant is biological father of the girl child delivered 19.05.2017; (iii) contradictions urged are minor and not material; (iv) multiple assaults causing pregnancy constitute aggravated penetrative sexual assault; (v) no mitigating circumstances to reduce the maximum sentence.

¶1

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 02.01.2026

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶7

--Premkumar .. Appellant Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Central, Coimbatore (Crime No.2 of 2017) .. Respondent

¶8

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 26.11.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.S.Suresh for Mr.Swamisubramanian

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

¶11

Page No.1 / 16

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(The Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan, J)

¶16

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.

¶17

2 . The case of the prosecution is that the victim is a native of Ramanathapuram.

¶18

Her parents have been engaged in agriculture. The victim girl studied till 10^th std in a government school in Karadarndhakkudi and thereafter, the victim girl and her father came to Coimbatore in March 2015 and she joined 11^th standard in a Corporation School. Her mother used to visit her from time to time. The appellant, who is from her native, used to come to her home to visit her father and if she needed any book, her father will tell to the appellant and he would buy it for her. Sometimes the appellant used to pick up her from her school. While so, on 14.05.2016, her father died. Thereafter, her mother, brother and sister came to Coimbatore and were staying with her. In August 2016, second week of Sunday at 10 a.m., the appellant came to her house and took her outside to buy her school book. Since he changed the route, the victim girl asked him as to where he was going for which, he replied that he was going to his house for taking money and took her to his house at Siddhapudhur. The victim girl stood outside of his house but the appellant compelled her to come inside. The appellant was a married man. His wife and two children were residing at Vadhavaneri. When the victim girl went inside, no one was there in the house. The appellant asked her to sit and put his hand in Page No.2 / 16

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶21

her shoulder and removed her dress. When the victim girl tried to stand, he pushed her in the cot and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. When the victim girl cried, he

¶22

consoled her and thereafter, took her to her home in his two wheeler. At that time, he threatened her not to disclose anything to her family or else he would kill her family members. Therefore, the victim girl did not disclose anything to her family. After 10 days, the accused told her that he has taken her nude photos and by threatening her

¶23

stating that she has to come whenever he calls or otherwise he would show the photos to all, he had sexual intercourse with her three times. Thereafter, the victim girl did not menstruate for two months. In February 2017, the accused took her to hospital for abortion stating that he is her husband. The doctor who examined the victim, told that the fetus cannot be aborted. Whenever her mother asked her as to whether she got menstruation, she said yes. On 18.05.2017, she suffered with severe stomach pain. When

¶24

her mother tried to apply oil in her stomach, she found her stomach so big and when her mother questioned her, she told her mother what had happened. Thereafter, since the victim was suffering with severe pain, her mother and brother took her to hospital, wherein she delivered a girl baby on 19.05.2017 and in the hospital, she gave the name of the appellant as father of her child. After the victim girl was discharged from the hospital on 24.05.2017, she went to AWPS, Gandhipuram and gave the written complaint/Ex.P.2.

¶25

Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 against the appellant herein for the offence under Sections

¶26

Page No.3 / 16

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶29

5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and after completion of investigation, they filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) read with 6 of PCOSO Act, 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore, and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018. The learned Sessions Judge, after completing the formalities and perusal of records found that prima facie case was made out and thereby, initially framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 5(l) & (m) read with 6 of POCSO Act & 506(i) of IPC. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Court that even though the contents of charges were correctly framed, Sections were wrongly mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the charges were amended as under Section 5(l)(j)(ii) & (m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on 13.11.2019 as per Section 216(1) Cr.P.C. and since there was no material alteration, both side admitted that there is no need for further evidence. Hence, both side evidence was closed.

¶30

During trial, in order to substantiate the charges against the appellant, on the side of the prosecution, totally 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.22, besides, the true copy of hospital register was marked as Ex.X1.

¶31

On completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating materials culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the appellant denied the same as false. However, on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

¶32

Page No.4 / 16

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶35

After completion of trial and upon hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and perusal of records, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012. However, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 5(l) & (j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) of IPC and thereby, convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year R.I. for the offence under Section 5(l) & (j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and to undergo two years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC. The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently and the sentence already undergone by the accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶36

Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are contradictions and discrepancies between the complaint and statement recorded from the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also in the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. In the complaint and deposition, the victim has stated that the appellant had told her that to take money, he was going to his house, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that the appellant had told her that to take helmet, he was going to his house. Further, in the complaint and deposition, the victim has stated that

¶38

Page No.5 / 16

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶41

while going to purchase book, the appellant took her to his house, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that after buying books, the appellant took her to his house. Further, in the complaint and chief examination, the victim has stated that after 10 days of the first sexual assault, the appellant blackmailed her stating that he had taken her nude photos, whereas in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that after one month of the first sexual assault, the appellant blackmailed her. The learned counsel further submitted that both in the complaint and statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim girl did not mention anything as if, after the first incident the appellant threatened her while dropping her at her home, whereas in the chief examination, she has stated that the appellant had threatened her with dire consequences after the first incident, while taking her in his two wheeler to her house and therefore, she did not disclose the first incident to anyone.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the victim was not a child and knowing well that the appellant is a married man, she had consented for the sexual intercourse with the appellant and became pregnant and therefore, they did not take any legal action against the appellant immediately. A perusal of chief examination of P.W.1 would clearly show that it is a consensual relationship and lodging the complaint after delivery of child alleging that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse, is only an afterthought.

¶43

Page No.6 / 16

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶46

9.1 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the age of the

¶47

victim itself is doubtful. Though P.W.10/Head Master of the School in which the victim girl was studying, has issued a Bonafide Certificate/Ex.P.14 mentioning the age of the victim as 02.07.2000, he has deposed that based on the 10^th mark sheet, produced by the victim at the time of joining in their school only, he mentioned the said date in the Bonafide Certificate and that he did not see the source of date of birth. Further, Ex.P.3/Birth Certificate of the victim has been obtained at Vadhavaneri Village. P.W.2/mother of the victim categorically deposed that P.W.1/victim was born at Ilayankudi Government Hospital, which is situated 20 k.m. away from Vadhavaneri Village. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 coupled with Ex.P.3 throws much light upon the prosecution case as it lacks any sanctity . Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a child under the definition of POCSO Act. When once the prosecution has not established the age of the victim, the conviction under the POCSO Act is erroneous. In the absence of proof of age, the consent is a vital point and neither the POCSO Act nor the offence under Section 375 IPC, would attract against the appellant. Further, the prosecution has not proved that the appellant only had taken the victim girl to the hospital for abortion.

¶48

9.2 The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has

¶49

not proved that the mother of the victim came to know about the pregnancy of the victim only at later point of time. When a girl who is unmarried and school going is pregnant, definitely the mother would have noted the same. But in this case, it is alleged that the Page No.7 / 16

¶50

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

¶51

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶52

pregnancy of P.W.1 was known to P.W.2/mother and P.W.3/brother only when the victim got the labour pain. The prosecution conveniently suppressed the fact that the other daughter of P.W.2, is a nurse and is working at a Primary Health Center at Ganapathy. Hence, the statement of the prosecution is unbelievable and highly imaginary in nature.

¶53

9.3 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that before awarding maximum punishment, the Court must hear the accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., which is a mandatory provision, whereas the trial Court failed to comply with the same. Further, as per the new amendment 2019, the minimum period of sentence is 20 years, but as per the old Act, the minimum sentence is 10 years. In the present case, the date of occurrence is August 2016. However, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded life imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that the victim was not a child at the time of occurrence and it was a consensual relationship and therefore, neither the POCSO Act nor the IPC offence for rape would attract against the appellant.

¶54

9.4 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the contradictions and discrepancies and erroneously convicted the appellant. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the appellant and the appellant has to be acquitted and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶55

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the appellant is a married man and taking advantage of

¶56

Page No.8 / 16

¶57

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

¶58

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶59

the innocence of the victim child, he took her to his house under the guise of buying books for her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Further, taking advantage of the first sexual intercourse, he blackmailed the victim girl stating that he has videographed the first incident and if she refuses to come whenever he calls, he would kill her family members and by stating so, he subjected the victim to sexual intercourse multiple times due to which, the victim became pregnant and also delivered a girl child on 19.05.2017. The birth certificate of the child born to the victim was marked as Ex.P.1. During the course of investigation, samples were collected from the victim and her child and also from the appellant and DNA test report/Ex.P22 proved that the appellant is the biological father of the child born to the victim.

¶60

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that in order to prove the age of the victim girl, the birth certificate of the victim was marked as Ex.P.3 as per which, the date of birth of the victim is 02.07.2000. Further, the Headmaster of the School, in which the victim studied, was examined as P.W.10 and he issued a certificate/Ex.P.14 stating that the date of birth of the victim is 02.07.2000. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of occurrence, the victim was aged 17 years and she was a child under the definition of POCSO Act. Even the doctor who conducted radiological test on the victim, was examined as P.W.5 and she has issued a report Ex.P.6 stating that the age of the victim is above 16 and below 18 years. Therefore, from the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., evidence of prosecution witnesses viz., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also medical records, it is

¶61

Page No.9 / 16

¶62

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

¶63

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶64

clearly proved that the victim was a child under the definition of POCSO Act and she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant due to which, she became pregnant and also delivered a child. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶65

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that since the victim was a child at the time of occurrence, the offence committed by the appellant falls under the POCSO Act. The trial Court rightly appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence and finding that the victim was a child and she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant, rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He further submitted that it is not as if there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim girl. The appellant is a married man and taking advantage of the innocence of a child, he exploited her and subsequently, by blackmailing the victim, he has continued to have sexual intercourse with the victim and made her pregnant. Therefore, there is no mitigating circumstances and there is no merit in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶66

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶67

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined in which, the victim was examined as P.W.1, the mother of the

¶68

victim was examined as P.W.2 and the brother of the victim was examined as P.W.3. The

¶69

Radiologist who conducted radiological test on the victim was examined as P.W.5 and the radiology test report was marked as Ex.P.6. The Head Master in which the victim girl

¶70

Page No.10/ 16

¶71

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

¶72

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶73

studied was examined as P.W.10 and the bona fide certificate issued by him was marked as Ex.P.14. The DNA test report was marked as Ex.P.22.

¶74

As far as penetrative sexual assault is concerned, the victim has clearly stated in her complaint/Ex.P.2 that the appellant forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault on her and subsequently, by blackmailing her, continued to have sexual intercourse with her due to which, she became pregnant and also delivered a child on 19.05.2017. The birth certificate of the child born to the victim was marked as Ex.P.1. The Doctor who assisted the delivery of the victim was examined as P.W.14. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the case in Crime No.2 of 2017 came to be registered by the respondent police and during the course of investigation, the victim was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording of statement and the learned Magistrate recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which also, the victim girl has clearly narrated the incident of penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant. Therefore, from the evidence of the victim/P.W.1, P.W.2/mother of the victim, P.W.3/brother of the victim, statement of the victim recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C./Ex.P.4, the evidence of the doctor/P.W.14 who assisted the delivery of the

¶75

victim girl doctor, birth certificate of the child born to the victim/Ex.P.1, it is clearly proved that the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant due to which, the victim became pregnant and also gave birth to a girl child on 19.05.2017. During the course of investigation, samples were collected from the appellant, victim girl and her child and were sent to Forensic Department for DNA test.

¶76

Page No.11/ 16

¶77

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

¶78

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶79

The DNA test report/Ex.P.22 also clearly shows that the appellant is the biological father of the child born to the victim.

¶80

As far as the age of the victim is concerned, the birth certificate of the victim which was marked as Ex.P.3, clearly shows that the date of birth of the victim is 02.07.2000. The Head Master of the School in which the victim studied has issued a Bona fide Certificate/Ex.P.14 based on the 10^th mark sheet of the victim as per which also, the date of birth of the victim is 02.07.2000. Even P.W.5/Doctor who conducted radiological test on the victim, has certified that the victim is aged above 16 years and below 18 years and the radiological report was marked as Ex.P.6. Therefore, from Ex.P.2/complaint given by the victim, Ex.P.4/statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., Ex.P.3/the birth certificate of the victim, Ex.P.6/radiological report of the victim and Ex.P.14/Bona fide Certificate, it is clear that the date of birth of the victim is 02.07.2000. The date of occurrence is second week of August 2016 and the victim girl has given birth to a child on 19.05.2017. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that at the time of occurrence, the victim had not completed the age of 18 years and she was a child at the time of occurrence under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act.

¶81

In the cases of this nature, no other independent witnesses can be expected since the accused commit this kind of offence in a secluded/hidden place by taking advantage of the innocence of the children.

¶82

Page No.12/ 16

¶83

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

¶84

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶85

As stated above, in the present case, both in the complaint and the statement

¶86

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also in her evidence, the victim girl has categorically stated that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant and due to which, she became pregnant and subsequently, she gave birth to a girl child. The DNA test report/Ex.P.22 also confirmed the same.

¶87

The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not material contradictions to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are minor contradictions, which will not go into the root of the matter and affect the case of the prosecution.

¶88

Therefore, on a reading of the materials both oral and documentary evidence, especially the evidence of P.W.1/victim, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the evidence of the doctors and also the medical records including the DNA test report, clearly show that the appellant has committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who was a child under the definition of POCSO Act. Since the appellant subjected the victim girl for penetrative sexual assault for more than once and made her pregnant, the offence committed by the appellant is termed as aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo the maximum punishment of life imprisonment. This Court finds no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶89

Page No.13/ 16

¶90

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

¶91

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶92

Though the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to reduce the sentence if

¶93

the Court is not convinced, taking into account the fact that the appellant being a married

¶94

man, had subjected the victim girl to penetrative sexual assault, who is a child under the definition of POCSO Act, this Court finds no mitigating circumstances to reduce the

¶95

sentence.

¶96

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶97

(P.V., J) (M.J.R., J) 02.01.2026

¶98

ksa-2

¶99

Page No.14/ 16

¶100

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

¶101

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

¶102

¶103

The Sessions Judge,

¶104

Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore

¶105

The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station

¶106

Central, Coimbatore

¶107

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶108

The Central Prison, Coimbatore

¶109

Page No.15/ 16

¶110

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

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

P.VELMURUGAN, J

and

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J

ksa-2

Crl.A.No.48 of 2020

02.01.2026

Page No.16/ 16

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

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the contradictions and discrepancies between the victim's complaint, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are material enough to discredit the prosecution case.¶37
The court held
The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the appellant's counsel are minor and not material; they neither go into the root of the matter nor affect the case of the prosecution.ratio¶87
2.
Whether the prosecution proved that the victim was a child (below 18 years) under the definition of POCSO Act at the time of occurrence.¶47
The court held
The victim's date of birth is established as 02.07.2000 from Ex.P.3 birth certificate, Ex.P.14 bona fide certificate issued by the Head Master based on the 10th mark sheet, and Ex.P.6 radiological report certifying age above 16 and below 18; the occurrence being in the second week of August 2016, the prosecution proved the victim had not completed 18 years and was a child at the time of occurrence under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act.ratio¶80
3.
Whether the sexual intercourse was consensual (so that neither POCSO nor Section 375 IPC would attract) or whether the appellant committed forcible penetrative sexual assault amounting to aggravated offences under the POCSO Act.¶42
The court held
On a reading of the oral and documentary evidence, especially the victim's evidence, her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the doctors' evidence and medical records including the DNA test report, the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl who was a child under the definition of POCSO Act.ratio¶88
4.
Appropriateness of the sentence: whether maximum punishment of life imprisonment was warranted, whether mitigating circumstances exist for reduction, together with the appellant's contentions on hearing under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and the pre/post-2019 minimum sentence position.¶53
The court held
The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to the maximum punishment of life imprisonment.ratio¶88

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018 convicting the appellant under Sections 5(l) & (j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 (life imprisonment plus fine of Rs.10,000/-, default one year R.I.) and under Section 506(i) IPC (two years R.I. plus fine of Rs.1000/-, default six months R.I.); sentences ordered to run concurrently with set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.¶16
learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore · 26.11.2019
Prior proceeding
After discharge from hospital on 24.05.2017, the victim went to AWPS, Gandhipuram and lodged the written complaint Ex.P.2.¶24
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the victim's complaint, the respondent police registered Crime No.2 of 2017 against the appellant for offences under Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 (section list continues across a page break in the source).¶25
Prior proceeding
After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore, for offence under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) read with 6 (printed as 'PCOSO') Act, 2012; taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.21 of 2018.¶29
Prior proceeding
Trial Court initially framed charges against the appellant under Sections 5(l) & (m) read with 6 of POCSO Act and 506(i) of IPC.¶29
Prior proceeding
Charges amended on 13.11.2019 under Section 216(1) Cr.P.C. to Sections 5(l)(j)(ii) & (m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012; no material alteration, both sides admitted no further evidence was needed and evidence was closed.¶29
Prior proceeding
At trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.14) and marked 22 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.22), besides the true copy of hospital register Ex.X1; defence led no oral or documentary evidence.¶30
Prior proceeding
Incriminating materials culled out from prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; he denied them as false.¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial Court found the accused not guilty under Section 5(m) of POCSO Act, 2012 but guilty under Sections 5(l) & (j)(ii) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) of IPC; sentenced to life imprisonment plus Rs.10,000/- fine (default one year R.I.) and two years R.I. plus Rs.1000/- fine (default six months R.I.); sentences to run concurrently with set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.¶35

Premkumar v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premkumar v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subramanian Vs State Rep.by

Sathiyapriya Vs The State Represented by its, The Deputy inspector General of Prison

Db Corp Limited Vs Phonographic Performance Limited India

Isravel Vs The Commissioner of Police

Rajeeb Dhathi Vs State Rep.by

A.Dharun, Vs Krishnamoorthi and 3 others