Dismissed¶132

Murugan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Feb 2026CRL A(MD)/396/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

POCSO aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor; conviction on sole testimony of victim without corroboration; minor inconsistencies ignored; false implication/money-dispute plea rejected; delay in FIR explained by threat; State of H.P. v. Manga Singh; Ganesan v. State; Phool Singh v. State of M.P.; Sham Singh v. State of Haryana; child witness cross-examination admonition; appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Mere assault on the accused is not sufficient to infer that it was due to a dispute relating to money transactions; the witnesses denied knowledge of any money transaction, the burden lay heavily on the accused to prove it, and in the absence of any defence evidence of false implication on account of the money dispute, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. ¶80

Murugan Vs The Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶132

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused was falsely implicated on account of a prior dispute over money transactions between the accused and the victim's family. +3 more

¶69

Court's answer

¶80

Ratio / Principle

Evidence on record must be read as a whole; selective or piecemeal appreciation is impermissible.

¶85

Key takeaways

Except for a few minor inconsistencies, ignorable as innocent and arising out of the victim's tender age, her evidence is reliable, cogent and convincing; minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies not of a fatal nature cannot throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.ratio¶106
Applying the law consistently laid down in the Supreme Court precedents, the victim's statements on the material particulars are unwavering, reliable and inspiring confidence, needing no corroboration; conviction can be based on the uncorroborated sole testimony of the victim where it is cogent, credible and blemishless.ratio¶121

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.374 Cr.P.C. against conviction under S.5(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and S.506(i) IPC for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl and criminal intimidation. Held: (i) the plea of false implication over a disputed money transaction failed, since the witnesses denied knowledge of any such transaction and mere assault on the accused cannot establish false implication; (ii) the testimony of the victim, consistent, clear, categorical and unshaken on the foundational facts, with only minor inconsistencies pardonable at her tender age, needs no corroboration and can sustain conviction; the six-day delay in lodging the complaint stood explained by the accused's threat to kill her father and brother; (iii) the appeal was dismissed and the conviction (10 years RI plus Rs.5,000 fine under POCSO; 1 year RI under IPC) together with Rs.85,000 compensation to the victim was confirmed. Obiter: judicial officers must intervene to prevent gruelling cross-examination of child victims and strictly follow the provisions on conduct of trial.

¶1

Crl.A.(MD).No.396/2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 16.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

Crl.A.(MD).No.396 of 2021

¶7

Murugan . . Appellant / Sole Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District. (In Crime No.13 of 2018) . . Respondent / Complainant

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for

¶11

the entire records connected with the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul in Spl.SC.No.49 of 2018 dated 05.05.2021 and set aside the same and consequently acquit the appellant.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, APP

*Sl.No.*	*Conviction Under Section*	*Sentence Awarded*
1	5(l)(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act	To undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 month SI.
2	506(i) of IPC	To undergo 1 years RI.The Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesan @ Naipodu Ganesan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sellur

A.Raman Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Nazarudeen Sha Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Ramu Vs Arumuga Thevar(Died)

Subramanian Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Magesh Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Nagercoil