Mahendran @ Mahesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2026CRL A(MD)/320/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proof of age of minor victim; school certificate as secondary evidence; non-production of birth certificate — adverse inference; ossification/radiologist assessment 17-18 years; Section 29 POCSO presumption not triggered where age unproved; Section 4 POCSO conviction unsustainable; Section 366 IPC kidnapping conviction fails where victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C statement shows she called the accused (romantic relationship, no contact with parents for 15 days); benefit of doubt to accused; acquittal; Fast Track Mahila Court Thoothukudi; POCSO foundational fact of age.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence in Spl.SC.No.33/2014 dated 20.10.2015 set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges; bail bond, if any, stands terminated; fine, if paid, to be refunded to him. ¶113

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of conviction and sentence in Spl.SC.No.33/2014 dated 20.10.2015 set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges; bail bond, if any, stands terminated; fine, if paid, to be refunded to him.

¶113

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the age of the victim girl — the foundational fact — so as to sustain the conviction under Section 4 of POCSO Act and activate the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The trial court's finding that the victim's age was not disputed in cross-examination and remained unchallenged is factually incorrect; a suggestion regarding her age was put to P.W.2 and answered (recording her age as 16 at the time of occurrence).

¶71

Ratio / Principle

As the primary evidence (birth certificate) was available with P.W.1, the school certificate Ex.P5, being secondary evidence, could have been relied on only in the absence of primary evidence.

¶76

Key takeaways

The failure to produce any of the documents on the basis of which Ex.P5 was prepared (admission register, application, transfer-certificate counterfoil) is fatal to the prosecution's case; P.W.8 had no personal knowledge of the register entries and the person who made the entry was not examined.ratio¶76
No reliance could have been placed on Ex.P5; the trial court's conclusion that the parents gave the date of birth at school admission rested on mere assumption and presumption, which cannot be accepted.ratio¶80
Since P.W.1 admitted that he possessed the victim's birth certificate but did not produce it, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution for its non-production.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal (Crl.A.(MD).No.320/2017, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Mrs. Justice N.Mala) against conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act — Allowed; conviction and sentence in Spl.SC.No.33/2014 (Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, dated 20.10.2015) set aside and accused acquitted. Held: (i) the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age, the foundational fact — the school certificate Ex.P5 was secondary evidence issued from admission records whose maker was not examined and whose underlying documents were not produced; the father's admission that he possessed the birth certificate, without producing it, warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution; medical evidence (P.W.12) assessed the age at 17-18 years and the radiologist's report was withheld; hence the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act was not activated and the POCSO conviction was unsustainable; (ii) the victim's trial testimony was wavering and inconsistent with her Section 164 Cr.P.C statement, in which she admitted calling the accused to the bus stop, indicating romantic attachment rather than forcible kidnapping, rendering the Section 366 IPC conviction unsustainable. Bail bond terminated; fine, if paid, to be refunded.

¶1

Crl.A.(MD).No.320/2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved On : 11.02.2026

¶4

Delivered On : 27.02.2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶7

Crl.A.(MD).No.320/2017

¶8

Mahendran @ Mahesh ...Appellant / Sole Accused Versus

¶9

State through The Inspector of Police Kadambur Police Station Thoothukudi District. [Crime No.51/2014] ...Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374[2] of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records connected with the judgment in Spl.SC.No.33/2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi dated 20.10.2015 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.R.Arasumani For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, APP

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(1)The above Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused

¶14

against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2015, made

*Sl.No.*	*Conviction Under Section*	*Sent*	*ence Awarded*
1	366 of IPC	To undergo	1 year RI and to pay a
		fine of Rs.1	,000/-, in default, to
		undergo 1 m	onth RI.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

A.Samuel Gnanam Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

Jose Mariyaragul Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andipatti Sub Division

State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Keeranur Vs Ramasamy @ Kidavetti

I Court Durai Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kulasekarapattinam

Mohamed Ismail Vs The Deputy Superintendent

State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid Vs a. Ajithkumar