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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Appeal partly allowed with modification of sentence alone: conviction and sentence under Sections 449 and 506 Part I IPC confirmed; conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act confirmed but sentence reduced from Life Imprisonment to 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment; all sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently; period of imprisonment already undergone to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure to state the date of the alleged occurrence and the delay in lodging the complaint, allegedly unexplained, was fatal to the prosecution case. +4 more

Court's answer

There is absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint: the mother of the victim lodged the complaint immediately after coming to know of the pregnancy, and it was registered as Cr.No.10 of 2021; the delay contention therefore fails.

Ratio / Principle

The victim's age was duly proved by her school certificate (Ex.P.6), establishing she was 15 years old at the time of the occurrence while the accused was 37; the contention that age was not lawfully established is answered.

Key takeaways

The victim girl's testimony is the most reliable evidence and does not require corroboration; her deposition is further supported by her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P2) and by the medical evidence, answering the grievance that the examining doctor did not depose.ratio¶61
The DNA profiling of the aborted foetus (report marked as Ex.P18) proved that the accused was responsible for the victim's pregnancy; the sentence runs over the page break and concludes at the start of the next page ('accused was responsible for her pregnancy.').ratio¶69
Taking together the testimony of the victim (P.W.2) and her mother (P.W.1), the Section 164 statement, the medical evidence, the DNA result, and even the evidence of D.W.1 (the accused's wife), the Court concluded that the prosecution clearly proved the charges and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), judgment dated 17.02.2026 delivered by G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J. (coram: R. Poornima, J.), partly allowed Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022 against conviction in Spl.S.C.No.13/2022 (Additional Sessions Judge, Karur). The sole accused, a 37-year-old married neighbour, was convicted under Sections 449 and 506 Part I IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl committed repeatedly during the Covid-19 lock-down when she was alone at home, resulting in pregnancy subsequently aborted. The Court held: victim's age stood proved by school certificate Ex.P.6; her testimony is the most reliable evidence needing no corroboration and is supported by her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P2) and medical evidence; DNA profiling of the foetus (Ex.P18) proved the accused caused the pregnancy; and there was no delay since the complaint followed discovery of the pregnancy. Convictions and sentences under the IPC sections were confirmed; considering the appellant's age, the life sentence under Section 6 POCSO Act was reduced to 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment, sentences to run concurrently, with set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

Crl.A(MD)No. 821 of 2022

S.Thirumurugan

... Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District. Crime No.10/2021.

... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2022 made in Spl.S.C.No.13/2022, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur and acquit the accused by allowing the present appeal.

1/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian for Mr.C.Mahadevan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.13/2022, dated 30.09.2022, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

The case of the prosecution is that, the minor victim girl

was aged about 15 years. She was studying 11^th standard and the accused is being a neighbour of the victim girl aged about 37 years. When the parents of the victim girl went out, during the month of 2/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

March 2021, the accused came to her house and committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault. The accused also continued to do the same, while the victim girl was alone at her house during Covid-19 lock-down. Thereafter, the victim became pregnant and suffered from stomach pain. Thereafter, the victim girl disclosed the offence committed by the accused and lodged a complaint.

On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.10 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report. On receipt of the same, the trial Court had taken cognizance and framed the charges as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449 of IPC, 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC.

On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the

3/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022 charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and no document was marked.

On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449, 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506

4/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

Part I of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to mention the date of the alleged occurrence, and that there was a huge delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained. It is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. The doctor, who examined the victim girl, did not depose before the Court and as a result, the medical evidence failed to support the case of the prosecution in proving the charge under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the prosecution did not establish the victim's age in accordance with the law. Despite the fact that the DNA analysis report is not a conclusive piece of evidence to prove the allegation of sexual assault, the trial court mechanically convicted the accused. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and must be set aside.

5/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and he also threatened the victim girl with dire consequences if she discloses the fact to anybody. Due to repeated penetrative sexual assault, the victim girl got pregnant. Subsequently, the pregnancy was aborted and the foetus was subjected to DNA test. It is categorically proved that the accused is the reason for pregnancy. The victim girl had deposed as P.W.2. She categorically deposed that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses it to anybody. Therefore, only after pregnancy, complaint was lodged before the respondent. That apart, the delay is immaterial in the sexual offence case. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly proved the charges, and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused. Accordingly, the conviction by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court.

6/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

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

To prove the age of the victim, the prosecution marked the school certificate of the victim as Ex.P.6, which clearly established that the victim was 15 years old at the time of the occurrence. The accused was 37 years old at the time of the incident. During Covid-19 lock-down, when the victim girl was alone in her house, the accused tress-passed into her house and utilising the absence of her parents had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened her not to disclose anybody and committed the very same offence repeatedly. As a result, she got pregnant and only thereafter, her parents came to know that the victim girl was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the accused. Immediately, the mother of the victim girl had lodged a complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.10 of 2021. Hence, there is absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint. The

7/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

mother of the victim girl had deposed as P.W.1. She deposed that due to Covid-19 lock-down, the victim girl did not go to school and she was alone in the house. The occurrence happened around 7 to 8 p.m. While being so, during the month of March 2021, P.W.1 was informed by the victim girl that she had stomach pain, vomiting and drowsiness. Though the victim girl was administered some medicine, she did not recover from the stomach pain. Thereafter, she came to understand about her pregnancy and the victim girl informed about the occurrence. Immediately, she lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The victim girl had deposed as P.W.2. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which was marked as Ex.P2. She categorically stated that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her, as a result, she got pregnant. She had deposed before the Court as P.W.2. The relevant portion of her deposition is as follows:-

8/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

“fle;j 15.03.2021 md;W khiy 6.00 kzpf;F vdJ ngupa jhj;jhit ghu;f;f vdJ mk;khTk;> mg;ghTk; Mykuj;Jg;gl;bf;F nrd;whu;fs;. md;W kio nga;J nfhz;bUe;jjhy; vdJ mk;kh> mg;gh md;wpuT tPl;bw;F tutpy;iy. ehDk;> vdJ jq;iffs; ,UtUk; tPl;bypUe;Njhk;. vdJ jq;iffs; ,UtUk; gf;fj;J tPl;bw;F nrd;W tpisahbf;nfhz;bUe;jhu;fs;> mg;NghJ md;wpuT Rkhu; 8.30 kzpf;F jpUKUfd; vq;fs; tPl;bw;F te;jhu;. cdf;F gpbj;jJ vy;yhk; thq;fpj;jUfpNwd; vd;Wk; ehk; ,UtUk; xd;whf ,Uf;fyhk; vd;Wk; vd;id $g;gpl;lhu;. ehd; Ntz;lhnkd;W nrhy;ypAk;> mq;F tpupj;J itj;jpUe;j ghapy; vd;id js;sp jdJ MZWg;ig vdJ ngz;ZWg;gpy; itj;J mOj;jpdhu;. ,Jgw;wp ntspapy; ahuplKk; nrhy;yf; $lhJ vd;W nrhd;dhu;. ehd; mijg;gw;wp ntspapy; nrhd;dhy; vdJ mk;kh> mg;ghit nfhd;WtpLNtd; vd;W kpul;bdhu;. mjd;gpd; mNj khjj;jpy; ehd; vdJ tPl;Lf;F gpd;dhy; ML Nka;j;Jf;nfhz;bUe;jNghJ vjpup mq;F te;J> vd;dplk; tPl;by; ahUk; cs;shu;fsh vd;W Nfl;L tPl;by; ahUk; ,y;yhjNghJ vd;id tYf;fl;lhakhf vd;Dld; clYwT itj;Jf;nfhz;lhu;. mNjNghy Vg;uy; khjj;jpYk; gyKiw tPl;by; ahUk; ,y;yhjNghJ tYf;fl;lhakhf vd;Dld; clYwT

9/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

itj;Jf;nfhz;lhu;. vdf;F Nk khjj;jpy; mjpfkhf tapw;Wtyp> the;jp> kaf;fk; te;jJ mJgw;wp vdJ mk;khtplk; nrhd;dNghJ vdJ mk;kh nkbf;fypy; khj;jpiu thq;fp nfhLj;jhu;> tapW typ> the;jp rupahftpy;iy. gpd;du; Ntq;fhk;gl;bf;F nrd;W tapiw Cjp ghu;j;jhu;fs;. ,uz;L ehl;fs; ed;whf ,Ue;jJ. gpd; kPz;Lk; tapWtyp the;jp kaf;fk; ,Ue;jJ. vdJ mk;kh re;Njfg;gl;L 07.07.2021 md;W vd;dplk; cdf;F jPl;LNgha; vt;tsT ehs; MdJ vd;W Nfl;lhu;. vdJ gpwe;j ehshd 11.04.2021 md;W jPl;LNghdjhf nrhd;Ndd;. mjd;gpd; jPl;LNghftpy;iy vd;W nrhd;Ndd. gpd; ehd; ele;jtw;iw vdJ mk;khtplk; $wpNdd;. gpd;du; 08.07.2021 md;W vdJ mk;kh vd;id Fspj;jiy muR kUj;Jtkidf;F mioj;J nrd;whu;. mq;F kUj;Jtu; vd;id ];Nfd; nra;J ghu;j;J ehd; %d;W khjk; fu;gkhf ,Ug;gjhf vd;dplKk;> vdJ mk;khtplKk; $wpdhu;. gpwF vdJ mk;kh Fspj;jiy midj;J kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ,J rk;ge;jkhf khiy 4.00 kzpf;F Gfhu; nfhLj;jhu;. Fspj;jiy kUj;JtkidapypUe;J Nky; rpfpr;irf;fhf fle;j 16.07.2021 md;W f&u; muR kUj;Jf;fy;Y}up kUj;Jtkidf;F 108 Mk;Gyd;]; %ykhf nrd;Nwhk;. mq;F vdf;F fUfiyg;G nra;ag;gl;lJ. gpd; 29.07.2021 md;W f&u; muR kUj;JtkidapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;Nld;. gpd; 30.07.2021 md;W Fspj;jiy ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F nrd;W eLtuplk; tof;F rk;ge;jkhf

10/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

thf;F%yk; mspj;Njd;.”

The victim girl's testimony is the most reliable evidence. Although it does not require corroboration, her deposition is supported by the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the medical evidence. After the FIR was registered, the victim girl was subjected to a medical examination by Dr. Kayathri. She advised the victim girl to undergo an ultrasound scan. On 17.07.2021, the victim underwent the ultrasound, which revealed that she was 13 to 14 weeks pregnant. Subsequently, on 23.07.2021, she experienced bleeding, and on 24.07.2021, her pregnancy was aborted. The foetus was later subjected to a DNA test. The discharge summary of the victim girl was marked as Ex.P5, and the Accident Register was recorded and marked as Ex.P7, in which she categorically stated that a known person had committed the aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. The DNA report was marked as Ex.P18. The report of the DNA is as follows:-

“ REPORT :

11/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

DNA was extracted from the above item and amplified for amelogenin ie., sex locus and also for 15 STR loci using PCR Amplified STR Technique after taking due care for the integrity of the sample.

The DNA profile of the above item, the comprehensive analysis of the test results of the above item with that of Alleged Accused Mr.Thirumurugan and Biological Mother Ms.Valli and the interpretations thereof are given in this office report cited in ref 2.

The unexpended portion of the above item has been labelled as 'CNA/321/2021' for identification.”

It is clear that the DNA evidence also proved that the

accused was responsible for her pregnancy. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the accused had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2. D.W.1, who is the wife of the accused, deposed that the victim girl frequently visited their house, while the accused never went to the victim girl's house. She only had an acquaintance with the accused. Although the accused had examined D.W.1, this witness supports the prosecution's case and has proved that the accused committed the 12/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

sexual offence against the victim girl. The accused is a married man and a father. He had absolute knowledge that the victim girl is a minor and even after knowing the said fact, he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the charges and the trial Court rightly convicted the accused. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the age of the appellant, the sentence may be modified since he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment.

Considering the age of the appellant, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 449 and 506 Part I of IPC are confirmed and conviction imposed on the appellant under section 6 of POCSO Act is confirmed and the sentence for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act alone is modified as 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment instead of Life Imprisonment.

13/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,] 17.02.2026

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes am

14/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

To

1.The Additional Sessions Court, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

15/16

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

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AND R. POORNIMA, J.

am

Crl.A(MD)No.821 of 2022

17.02.2026

16/16

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