Allowed¶60

Agilan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Feb 2026CRL A/622/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL A No. 622 of 2023; Sunder Mohan J.; acquittal in criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; POCSO Act Section 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) penetrative sexual assault; Sections 366 and 417 IPC; age determination of victim; school certificate date of birth unreliable; Head Master P.W.6; victim turns hostile and retracts testimony citing police tutoring and coercion; witness of sterling quality doctrine; consensual relationship versus promise of marriage; DNA report parentage; delayed FIR Crime No.8 of 2016; impugned POCSO Court Chengalpattu judgment dated 20.03.2023 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; the judgment dated 20.03.2023 of the Special Court (POCSO Court), Chengalpattu in New S.C.No.50 of 2019 / Old S.C.No.4 of 2018 set aside and the appellant acquitted of all the charges. ¶60

Agilan Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution established that the victim was a child (below 18 years) at the time of the occurrence, given records and statements indicating she was about 21 years old. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

The prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a child at the time of the occurrence; the victim consistently took the stand that she was a major aged about 21 years, and the appellant could have been under a bona fide impression that she was a major.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The school certificate (Ext.P4) relied upon to prove the victim's date of birth as 02.04.2001 was of no avail: the Head Master (P.W.6) admitted he was not aware of the basis on which the date of birth was entered, the father (P.W.1) did not state that date of birth, and the prosecution marked no other acceptable document to prove the victim's age.

¶14

Key takeaways

Contemporaneous materials contradicted the claimed date of birth: the F.I.R. recorded the victim's age as 21 years in 2016, P.W.4 deposed she was about 20 years at the time of occurrence, and the 'History' column of the Medical Examination Report (Ext.P7) mentioned about 21 years.ratio¶10
The victim totally disowned her earlier version in cross-examination, attributing it to tutoring and coercion by the police, and the prosecution brought nothing on record to substantiate its suggestion that she turned hostile due to the appellant's threat; in light of her contradictory statements she is not a witness of sterling quality, so a conviction cannot rest solely on her testimony.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction under Sections 366 and 417 IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act — allowed. The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a child at the time of the occurrence: the F.I.R., the deposition of P.W.4, the 'History' column of the Medical Examination Report (Ext.P7) and the victim's own cross-examination placed her age at about 21 years, while the only age proof offered — the school certificate (Ext.P4) recording date of birth 02.04.2001 — was of no avail as the Head Master (P.W.6) admitted ignorance of the basis of the entry and the father (P.W.1) never stated that date of birth. The victim wholly retracted her examination-in-chief version, attributing it to police tutoring and coercion, and being a witness of contradictory statements she was not of sterling quality on whose sole testimony a conviction could rest; the prosecution also produced nothing to substantiate its claim that she turned hostile owing to the appellant's threat. On the evidence (delayed complaint, no complaint by the victim to her parents, DNA confirming paternity) the prosecution had established only a consensual affair. The judgment dated 20.03.2023 of the POCSO Court, Chengalpattu was set aside and the appellant acquitted of all charges. (Madras High Court, Sunder Mohan J., 25-02-2026.)

¶1

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶6

Agilan

¶7

S/O. Nagadass, No.50, Mariamman Koil Street, Ayimicherry, Kunnam Post, Walajabad, Kancheepuram District.

¶8

..Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

The Inspector Of Police All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram. Cr.No.8/2016.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the Judgment passed against the appellant on 20.03.2023 in S.C.No.50 of 2019 of New Special Sessions Court and SC.No.4 of 2018 of old Special Sessions Court, by the POCSO Court at Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District and acquit him of all the Charges.

¶13

For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Anbalagan

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment passed in New S.C.No.50 of 2019 and Old S.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Special

¶17

Page1 of 9

¶18

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

¶19

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶20

Sessions Court, POCSO Court, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences as follows:

¶21

Under Section	Sentence
366 IPC	7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/-, I/d. 6 months S.I
417 IPC	1 year S.I
6 r/w 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act	10 years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/-, I/d. 1 year R.I

¶22

It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the victim girl, who was aged about 16 years according to the prosecution were in a love affair; that on 09.03.2016, the appellant lured the victim girl, and on the promise of marriage, took her to a remote place and committed penetrative sexual assault on her, and thus committed the aforesaid offence.

¶23

On the complaint given by P.W.1, the father of the victim girl, on 12.10.2016, an F.I.R was registered by P.W.11 in Crime No.8 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 417 and 376 IPC. The investigation was thereafter conducted by P.W.13, who, after subjecting the victim to medical examination and recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., filed the final report before the Special Court. The Special Court framed three charges under Sections 366 and 417 IPC and Section 6 read with 5(j)(ii) of POCSO Act.

¶24

Page2 of 9

¶25

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

¶26

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶27

Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked Ext.P.1 to Ext.P13. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of all the offences and sentenced him as stated above.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim had throughout stated that her age was 21 years at the time of occurrence; that even in the complaint given by her father, the victim’s age was mentioned as 21 years; that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual; and that in any case, the victim, in her cross examination, had disowned her earlier versions and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the victim turned hostile two years after her examination-in-chief; and that she had been won over by the appellant; that the prosecution had established the age of the victim by marking the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school in which the victim had studied and therefore, the victim’s perception of her age is immaterial; and that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

¶30

Page3 of 9

¶31

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

¶32

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶33

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

As stated above, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is the father of the victim; P.W.2 is the victim child; P.W.3 is a witness to the Observation Mahazar (Ext.P3); P.W.4, a relative of P.W.1, who corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and stated that the victim became pregnant; P.W.5 is a witness to the alleged confession of the appellant, who turned hostile; P.W.6 is the Head Master of the school where the victim had studied and who issued the certificate (Ext.P4), in which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 02.04.2001; P.W.7 is the nurse who conducted pregnancy test on the victim and signed the Lab Register (Ext.P5); P.W.8 is the doctor who had examined the appellant and issued the Potency Certificate (Ext.P6); P.W.9 is the doctor who examined the victim and had issued the Age Certificate (Ext.P8) and also certified that the victim was pregnant and had given Medical Examination Report marked as Ext.P7; P.W.10 is a witness to the confession of the appellant; P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R and conducted the initial part of the investigation; P.W.12 is an Expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory who had issued the DNA report (Ext.P12); P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer who completed the investigation and filed the final report.

¶35

Page4 of 9

¶36

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

¶37

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶38

It is the prosecution case that the victim and the appellant had a consensual affair. The DNA report also confirms that the appellant is the biological father of the child born to the victim. The victim had not complained about the alleged occurrence to her parents. Though the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 09.03.2016, the complaint was lodged only on 12.10.2016, when the victim was found to be pregnant by her parents. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the prosecution had only established that there was a consensual affair.

¶39

It is seen from the F.I.R that the father of the victim girl had stated that the victim girl’s age was 21 years in the year 2016. In fact, P.W.4, a relative of P.W.1, also had deposed that the victim was aged about 20 years at the time of the occurrence. In the Medical Examination Report (Ext.P7), in the Column relating to ‘History’, it is also mentioned that the victim about was 21 years. Though the prosecution claims that the victim was born on 02.04.2001, the only evidence produced by the prosecution is the record marked through the Head Master of the Primary School where the victim is said to have studied from 2^nd Standard to 5^th Standard. The Head Master was examined as P.W.6. In his cross examination, P.W.6 stated that the original of the record marked as Ext.P4 was in the School. He would also admit that he is not aware of the basis on which date of birth was entered in the said record. Further, P.W.1, the father of the victim has not stated that the victim was born on 02.04.2001. Therefore, except

¶40

Page5 of 9

¶41

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

¶42

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶43

for the said school record, there is no other evidence to establish that the victim was born on 02.04.2001.

¶44

P.W.2, the victim herself, when cross-examined, though belatedly, stated that her age was 21 years at the time of the occurrence. This version of hers is contrary to her deposition in the chief examination. She further deposed that she had an affair with another person by the name Madurai and that she became pregnant only because of that relationship. She had totally disowned the version given by her in the chief examination and further added that was deposed by her in the chief examination was due to the tutoring and coercion of the police.

¶45

The relevant portion of the P.W.2’s evidence in the cross examination

¶46

is as follows:

¶47

“vdf;F 3 tUl';fSf;F Kd;g[ jpUkzk; Mfptpl;lJ/ vd; fzthpd; bgah; kJiu/ 2016k; tUlk; vdf;F 21 taJ ,Uf;Fk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ehd; 2016k; tUlk; kJiu vd;gtUld; jhd; ngrp gHfp te;njd;/ mth; K:ykhfjhd; ehd ; fh;g;gkhndd;/ vd ; fh;g;gj;jpw;F ntW ahUk; fhuzk ; ,y;iy/ ehd ; ve;j gs;spapYk ; gof;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nghyprhh; brhy;yp bfhLj;jJ nghd;W ehd; gaj;jpy; vd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; mt;thW rhl;rpak; mspj;jpUf;fpnwd;/ vd ; Kjy ; tprhuizapy ; Twpa[s;s tptu';fs; jtwhdit vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jpiuia tpyf;fp M$h; vjphpia fhz;gpj;j nghJ mth; ahh; vd;nw vdf;F

¶48

Page6 of 9

¶49

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

¶50

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶51

bjhpahJ vd;W rhl;rp brhd;dhh;/ nghyprhh ; ve;j fhyj;jpYk ; vd;id tprhhpf;ftpy;iy vd;why ; rhpjhd;/ nghyprhhplk ; ehd ; ve;j thf;FK:yK:k ; bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why ; rhpjhd;/ vjphpf;Fk ; ,e;j tHf;fpw;Fk ; vt;tpj rk;ke;jKk; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/”

¶52

In the cross examination, the prosecution had suggested to the victim that the she had turned hostile due to the threat of the appellant. However, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate that.

¶53

Be that as it may, even assuming that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and she turned hostile for extraneous reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was a child at the time of occurrence. The victim has consistently taken the stand that she was a major and was aged about 21 years at the time of occurrence and the appellant could also have been under the bona fide impression that the victim was a major. The prosecution had not marked any acceptable document to prove the age of the victim. The certificate issued by the Head Master is of no avail as admittedly, he was not aware of the basis on which the date of birth was rendered.

¶54

Further as stated above, the victim had totally disowned her earlier version in her cross examination. The prosecution case rests on the sole

¶55

Page7 of 9

¶56

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

¶57

CRL A No. 622 of 2023

¶58

testimony of the victim. In the light of the contradictory statements made by the victim, it cannot be held that the victim is a witness of sterling quality so as to base a conviction solely on her testimony.

¶59

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment

¶60

cannot be sustained in the light of the above evidence. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

¶61