Vincent vs The Inspector of police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 01.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) No. 389 of 2023

CNR:{HCMD010556632023}
Vincent
S/o. Thomson, Kothamangalam, Mavadi, Pothanikadu
Post, Ernakulam District.
Now confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
..Petitioner
Vs
The Inspector of police
All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanyakumari
District. Crime No.32 of 2021.
..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the
conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for
Protection of Children from the Sexual offences Act cases in Nagercoil in
Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2021, dated 13.04.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karunanithi
for Mr.V.Baskaran
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Nagercoil, in
Spl. S.C. No. 48 of 2021 dated 13.04.2023.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the trial Court.
3. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that on 05.05.2021, at
around 13.00 hours, P.W.17, while serving as the Sub-Inspector of Police at the
All Women Police Station, Marthandam, received Ex.P1 complaint from Thangam
and registered Ex.P18 First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.32 of 2021
for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. She forwarded the complaint
statement and F.I.R to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram,
and sent the other copies to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,
Marthandam. She also placed a copy of the FIR before the Inspector of Police for
further investigation.
4. P.W.21 Tmt. Gnanaprakasam, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Marthandam, took up the investigation of the above case. On 05.05.2021,
she visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.4 Observation Mahazar and
Ex.P.20 Rough Sketch, in the presence of witnesses, namely, Daisybai and P.W.5
Jeyasobi. She examined the witnesses Thangam, Pitchi, Subu, Daisybai, Jeyasobi
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

and the Sub-Inspector of Police Tmt. Pongeetha and recorded their statements. On
08.05.2021, the victim was produced by her parents. P.W.21 examined P.W.2, the
victim child, and recorded her statement. Thereafter, she altered the sections of
law from Section 366 IPC to Sections 419 and 366 IPC read with Sections 5(l)
and 6 of the POCSO Act vide Ex.P.21 Alteration report. She requested medical
examination of the victim through Gladis Irin and forwarded the victim along with
her mother for the same. On the same day, she arrested the Accused at 8.00 a.m. at
the Kaliyakkavilai Bus Stand in the presence of witnesses P.W.8 Jebinkumar and
P.W.20 Anish. She recorded the voluntary confession statement given by the
Accused and obtained the signatures of the witnesses. Thereafter, she forwarded
the Accused to judicial custody. She examined the said witnesses Jebinkumar and
Anish and recorded their statements.
5. On 11.05.2021, she made a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate
No. I, Padmanabhapuram, for recording the statement of the victim under Section
164(5) Cr.P.C. On 13.05.2021, she produced the victim along with her mother
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Padmanabhapuram, for recording the
victim's statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. On 11.05.2021, she also made a
request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Padmanabhapuram, to conduct a
potency test on the Accused. On 15.06.2021, she produced the Accused before the
Government Hospital, Asaripallam, through Head Constables Rajkumar and Shaji
3/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

for the said examination. On 11.05.2021, she forwarded the samples collected
from the victim to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli. On
10.05.2021, she visited the place of occurrence at Mavadi, Pallarimangalam Post,
Kerala State and prepared Ex.P.25 Observation Mahazar in the presence of
witnesses P.W.10 Shaji and P.W.7. Rajendran.
6. On the same day, she examined the witnesses Shaji, Rajendran, the
landlord Suresh and Head Constable Ramani and recorded their statements. On
14.05.2021, she examined the witnesses Thangam, P.W.2 (the victim child), Pitchi,
and Sibu and recorded their further statements. On the same day, she altered the
sections of law to Sections 366, 419, and 506(i) IPC and Sections 11(iv), 12, 5(l),
and 6 of the POCSO Act. She forwarded Ex.P.26 Alteration Report to the learned
Judicial Magistrate. On 15.06.2021, she examined Head Constable Shaji, Gladis
Irin and Rajkumar and recorded their statements. On 22.06.2021, she examined
the Headmaster Rajendran, who had issued the age certificate of the victim, and
recorded his statement.
7. On 23.06.2021, she received the report from the Child Welfare Officer
and recorded his statement. On 05.07.2021, she examined Dr.Rajesh, who had
conducted the potency test on the Accused. On 14.07.2021, she received the
Forensic Science Report and examined the Scientific Officer, Vijayalatha and
4/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

recorded her statement. On 28.07.2021, she received the report from Dr. Bibinsi,
who had conducted the medical examination of the victim. She examined the said
doctor and recorded her statement. Finally, on 12.08.2021, she laid the final report
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Padmanabhapuram.
8. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Padmanabhapuram, has taken
cognizance of the final report and issued summons to the Accused. Upon his
appearance, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were
furnished to him under Section 207 the Cr.P.C. As the offences alleged were
exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate committed the
case under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Court, Special Court for
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Cases, Nagercoil.
9. The Special Court has taken cognizance of the said case in Spl.S.C.
No.48 of 2021. Upon the appearance of the Accused, the trial Court has framed
charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 11(iv) read with
Section 12 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 416 read with Section 419, 366 and
506(ii) of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the Accused, which
he denied and therefore, he was tried by the trial Court.
5/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

10. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.21 were examined, and
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 were marked. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence were put to the Accused
under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Accused denied the same as false and
stated that he had witnesses on their side. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 to
D.W.3 were examined, However, no documents were marked. Therefore, the
defence evidence was closed. After hearing both sides, the trial Court found the
Accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 11(iv) r/w Section 12 of
POCSO Act, Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act Sections 416 r/w 419 of
IPC, 366 of IPC and 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced him as tabulated below:
Accused Nos. Penal Provision Imprisonment Fine amount
Sole Accused 5 (l) r/w 6 of
POCSO Act
25 years Rigorous
Imprisonment
Rs.50,000/- in default
of which to undergo
one year Rigorous
Imprisonment
11(iv) r/w 12 of
POCSO Act
Two years Rigorous
imprisonment
Rs.1,000/- in default of
which to undergo three
months rigorous
imprisonment
366 of IPC Seven years
rigorous
imprisonment
Rs.2,000/- in default of
which to undergo six
months rigorous
imprisonment
416 r/w 419 of
IPC
Two years rigorous
imprisonment
506(ii) of IPC Three years
Rigorous
imprisonment
6/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

11. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Accused has come
up with the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant is heard and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State was also heard. The
trial Court records were called for and perused.
12.The point for determination is whether the conviction and sentence
imposed on the Accused is sustainable or not?
Answer:-
13. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is the case of the
prosecution that the victim's date of birth is 23.08.2005. She was aged about 15
th
years at the time of occurrence. She was studying at 11
standard at Thakkalai
Government Higher Secondary School. Her father died 8 years back. Her mother
was working at brick-kiln and was maintaining the family. The appellant herein is
a married man. Prior to two years back, he got acquaintance with the mother of
the victim child at a relative marriage. Thereafter, he used to talk to the victim
child and her mother over phone. One day, when the victim’s mother’s mobile
phone rang, the victim answered the call. The Accused impersonated Vishal, the
son of the Accused, and spoke to the victim as though he were Vishal. He told her
that he loved her and wished to marry her. Initially, the victim disconnected the
7/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

call. However, the Accused called her again and, with sexual intent, induced her to
develop a romantic relationship with him by continuing to impersonate Vishal.
Believing that she was speaking to Vishal, the victim developed feelings of love
for the Accused. Thereafter , he called the victim to Thiruvananthapuram and
informed her that he would be waiting for her there. He further assured her that
they would get married and live happily together.
14. It is the further case of the prosecution that acting on the Accused's plan,
on 04.05.2021, at around 8:00 a.m., the victim travelled from Thakkalai to
Thiruvananthapuram by bus. Upon reaching the Thiruvananthapuram bus stand,
she contacted the Accused, who told her to wait at the bus stand. When the victim
saw the Accused, she realised that he was not Vishal, as she had been led to
believe, but the Accused, Vincent. However, the Accused claimed that he and his
father looked alike, he then took her to a rented house at Mavadi,
Kothamangalam, where he was residing.
15. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 04.05.2021 at around
7.30 hours, he had taken her to the said house and made her to stay with him and
at around 09.00 p.m., he removed the dresses of the victim and committed
penetrative sexual assault. Further, he had threatened her by saying that if she
revealed the happenings to others, he would murder her. Between 04.05.2021 and
8/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

06.05.2021 he had committed penetrative sexual assault at several times.
Therefore, the Accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 419,
366, 506(i) of IPC and 11(iv), 12, 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. To substantiate
the said case, the prosecution has projected P.W.1 to P.W.21 and exhibited Exs.P1
to P26.
16. On careful perusal of the evidence projected on the side of the
prosecution, it is found that P.W.1, the mother of the victim, who set the criminal
law in motion, was examined as P.W.1. In her deposition, P.W.1 stated that she
was working at a brick kiln and had two children of whom the victim was her
elder daughter. Her husband had died before eight years due to ill health. At the
time of the occurrence, the victim was about 17 years old. Her date of birth was
th
23.08.2006. The victim had completed her 10
standard and was studying in the
th
11
standard at the time of the occurrence. P.W.1 knew the appellant. She usually
left for work at 7.00 a.m. and would return home at 6.30 p.m. On 04.05.2021, she
had left for work as usual, leaving her daughter and son at home. Upon
completion of her work, she returned home at 06.30 p.m. When she returned
home, she found that the victim was missing. She searched in the neighbourhood
but could not trace her. Therefore, on 05.05.2021, she lodged Ex.P1 complaint
with the All Women Police Station, Marthandam.
9/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

17. She further deposed that on 07.05.2021, at about 08.00 p.m., she
returned home. When he enquired with her, she informed him about the
occurrence. The Accused claimed that his name was Vishal and that he was
working as an engineer at the Collector's Office in Germany. Upon meeting him,
she came to know that he was not Vishal but Vincent. However, he claimed that
Vishal and Vincent are one and the same person. After three days, her daughter
cried and informed him that she wanted to see her mother. On 07.05.2021, the
Accused brought her to Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter dropped her at the
Kaliyakkavilai bus stand. He further warned her not to disclose the incident to
anyone. He threatened her if she revealed the same, he will murder her and her
brother. Thereafter, he sent her to Thakkalai by bus.
18. PW1 further deposed that on 08.05.2021, she took her daughter to the
All Women Police Station, Marthandam. On the same day, she took her daughter
to the Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, for medical examination. On
12.05.2021, her daughter was produced before the Child Welfare Committee and
was given counselling. On 13.05.2021, her daughter was produced before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, before whom she gave a statement under Section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
10/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

19. The victim was examined as P.W.2. She, in her evidence, deposed that
her mother was working at a brick kiln. At the time of the occurrence, she was
th
about 15 years old and was studying in the 10
standard. She knows the Accused.
Her date of birth is 23.08.2006. Her mother, P.W.1, used to leave for work at 7.00
a.m. and would return home at 6.30 p.m. About two years prior to the occurrence,
the Accused, Vincent, met her mother at a relative’s marriage at Kaliyakkavilai
and obtained her mother’s phone number. Thereafter, he used to call her mother
and speak with her over the phone. P.W.2 also used to speak with him.
20. On one occasion, the Accused claimed to be his son Vishal and has
spoken to her and P.W.2 was under the impression that she was speaking with his
son Vishal. A few days later, the person whom she believed to be Vishal professed
his love for her and expressed his desire to marry her. She refused his proposal.
However, he continued to persuade her with sweet words. Though she knew the
Accused, she did not know his son, Vishal. On 03.05.2021, the Accused, Vincent,
called her and instructed her to come away without informing anyone.
21. On 04.05.2021, after her mother had left for work, P.W.2 left her house
at about 8.30 a.m. and went to Thakkalai, from where she proceeded to the
Kaliyakkavilai bus stand and thereafter to the Thiruvananthapuram bus stand.
11/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

While she was waiting at the bus stand, the Accused, Vincent, arrived. She asked
him where his son, Vishal, was. The Accused replied that he himself was Vishal
and that he was the person who had been speaking to her. P.W.2 told him that he
was not Vishal but Vincent. However, the Accused claimed that he and his father
looked alike and reiterated that he was Vishal. Thereupon, P.W.2 told the Accused
that she wanted to return home and attempted to contact her mother. Immediately,
the Accused took her phone and broke the SIM card. He told her that, since she
had left her house believing him, nobody would accept her if she returned home.
He then took her on a bus to Ernakulam and, from there, took her by autorickshaw
to a rented house at Mavadi. In that house masonry things are found and no one is
there.
22. She further deposed that on 04.05.2021 at about 09.00 p.m., the
Accused pressed her breast and she refused, however, the appellant claimed that
he would marry her and removed her dress and touched the victim's private part in
his hand. She said that it is paining and refused him, however, the appellant had
committed penetrative sexual assault. She weeping with pain. On 05.05.2021 at
03.00 a.m., again the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault. From
04.05.2021 to 06.05.2021 when she was staying there, the Accused had committed
penetrative sexual assault several times.
12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

23. She further deposed that when the Accused was speaking with her as
Vishal, he informed her that he was working at Germany in Collector Office as
Engineer. The Accused had impersonated and cheated her. The Accused is a
married man having two children. He spoke to the victim as though she were his
elder son Vishal and cheated her. After three days, the victim informed the
Accused that her mother would be searching for her, as she had been away from
home for three days, and requested him to take her back to her house.
24. She further deposed that on 07.05.2021, the Accused took her from
Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter to Kaliyakkavilai. At the
Kaliyakkavilai bus stand, he threatened her not to disclose the occurrence to
anyone. Thereafter, he put her on a bus bound for Thakkalai and left the place. The
victim got down at Thakkalai and reached her house at about 08.00 p.m. on
07.05.2021. When her mother questioned her about her absence, the victim
narrated the occurrence to her. Thereafter, her mother lodged a complaint on
08.05.2021 at about 06.00 a.m. The victim accompanied her mother, went to the
All Women Police Station, Marthandam and narrated the occurrence. On the same
day, the respondent police sent the victim for medical examination at the Medical
College Hospital, Asaripallam. She was also produced before the Child Welfare
Committee, Nagercoil, on 08.05.2021, where counselling was given to her. On
13.05.2021, she appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Thakkalai,
13/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

and gave a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.). Ex.P2 is the birth certificate of the victim.
25. P.W.3 Tmt. Pitchi, is the sister of P.W.1. She has deposed in line with the
evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 Sibu has deposed in line with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and
2.
26. P.W.5, Jeyasobi is one of the witnesses to the Observation Mahazar. She
deposed about the preparation of Ex.P4 the observation mahazar, by the Inspector
of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam. P.W.6, Shaji is one of the
witnesses to the Observation Mahazar relating to the secondary place of
occurrence. In his evidence, he deposed that on 10.05.2021, at about 11.00 a.m.,
while he and his friend Rajendran were proceeding along the Kothaimangalam–
Adivadu Road, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam,
enquired about the way to Mavadi. He and his friend accompanied the Inspector
and showed her the way to Mavadi. Thereafter, the Inspector prepared Ex.P5 the
observation mahazar, at the house where the Accused had stayed. He and
Rajendran signed the said mahazar as witnesses. P.W.7 Rajendran has deposed in
line with the evidence of P.W.6.
14/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

27. P.W.8 Jabinkumar, in his evidence, deposed that on 08.05.2021, at about
8.00 a.m., while he and Anish were standing near the Kaliyakkavilai Bus Stand,
the Inspector of Police attached to the All Women Police Station arrested the
Accused in their presence. At that time, the Accused voluntarily gave a confession
statement, which was recorded by the Inspector of Police. P.W.8 and PW20 Anish
signed the confession statement, which was marked as Ex.P7. P.W.20 Anish has
also deposed in line with the evidence of P.W.8.
28. P.W.9 Gladis Irin, Head Constable attached to the All Women Police
Station, Marthandam, deposed that on 08.05.2021, at about 10.00 a.m., she took
the victim to the Government Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, for medical
examination. As the medical examination could not be completed on that day, she
produced the victim before the Sathiya Ammaiyar Home for Women and Children
at Parakinkal. On 09.05.2021, she again took the victim to the Government
Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, and accompanied her for the medical
examination. The initial medical examination was completed on 10.05.2021. On
the same day, she produced the victim before the Child Welfare Committee and
admitted her to the Sathiya Ammaiyar Home at Parakinkal, Nagercoil. She
thereafter submitted a report to the police station. P.W.9 further deposed that the
victim underwent counselling on 12.05.2021. Subsequently, on 15.06.2021, she
handed over the samples collected from the victim to the Regional Forensic
15/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli. She identified the passports relating to the official
duty entrusted to her, which were marked as Exs.P8 and P9.
29. P.W.10 Shaji is the Head Constable who produced the Accused before
the Government Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, for medical examination.
He identified his passport as Ex.P10. P.W.11 Daisyboi, is another witness to the
observation mahazar. She identified her signature on the observation mahazar
which was marked as Ex.P11. P.W.12, Rajakumar, deposed in line with the
evidence of P.W.10 and identified his passport, which was marked as Ex.P12.
30. P.W.13 Dr. Bibinsi, conducted the medical examination of the victim on
08.05.2021. She, in her evidence, deposed that the victim was produced before her
on 08.05.2021 at around 2.00 p.m. The victim had reported that on 04.05.2021 at
around 08.30 hrs she was kidnapped by known male person to Tiruvandram and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her for three days. The victim had
attained puberty at the age of 13. Her last menstrual cycle is 01.05.2021. She has
not found any external injury on the victim. No genital injuries, hymen absent.
She collected pubic hair and forwarded the same to the Regional Forensic
Laboratory, Tirunelveli through Head Constable Gladis Irin. On 10.05.2021 Ultra
sound was taken to the victim. Blood group of the victim is A+ and on
13.05.2021 she received chemical examination from Regional Forensic
16/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Laboratory, Tirunelveli. The report reveals that neither Semen nor Spermatozoa
was detected in the smears collected from the victim. Therefore, she has given an
opinion that there is no evidence to show that the victim had recent intercourse.
Ex.P12 is the Accident Register recorded by her. Ex.P.13 is the Chemical Analysis
Report. Ex.P14 is the Wound Certificate issued by her.
31. P.W.14, Glament Vinsili, member of the Child Welfare Committee, in
his evidence, deposed about the counselling given to the victim and the statement
recorded as Ex.P15.
32. P.W.15, Rajendran, issued Ex.P16 age and community certificate of the
victim, based on the school records. As per the certificate, the victim’s date of
birth is 23.08.2006 and she belongs to the Hindu Nadar community.
33. P.W.16 Dr.Rajesh, who conducted the medical examination of the
Accused, in his evidence, deposed that he examined the Accused and opined that
there was nothing to suggest that the Accused was unfit for sexual intercourse.
The potentiality report was marked as Ex.P17.
34. P.W.17, Tmt. Pongeetha is the Sub-Inspector of Police who initially
17/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

registered the case and forwarded it to the Inspector of Police for further
investigation.
35. P.W.18 Suresh, the landlord of the house in which the Accused was
residing, in his evidence, deposed that the Accused had rented his house in 2021
for a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. On 04.05.2021, the Accused brought a 15-year-
old girl and began residing with her in the said house. He further deposed that he
had heard that the victim belonged to Kaliyakkavilai. On 11.05.2021, the police
enquired with him and he provided them with the relevant details.
36. P.W.19 Tmt. Ramani, the Head Constable, accompanied the Inspector of
Police, Marthandam, while examining P.W.18 Suresh. She has deposed in
consonance with the testimony of P.W.18.
37. P.W.21 the Investigating Officer, has deposed regarding the
investigation conducted by her, including the preparation of the observation
mahazar and rough sketch, the recording of the statements of witnesses, the arrest
of the Accused, and the recording of his confession statement. She has further
spoken about the medical examination of the Accused and the victim, the
collection of material evidence and the filing of the final report before the trial
18/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Court.
38. On a careful perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, it is found that, except for the testimony of P.W.2, there is no other
evidence on record to prove the occurrence. The prosecution case rests entirely on
the testimony of P.W.2, the victim. At the time of the occurrence, the victim was
aged about 15 years. Her birth certificate has been marked as Ex.P2, which
records her date of birth as 23.08.2006. The school certificate produced through
P.W.15 also discloses the victim’s date of birth as 23.08.2006. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that the victim was aged about 15 years at the time
of the occurrence and, accordingly, was a child within the meaning of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
39. The victim, in her deposition, clearly stated that she became acquainted
with the appellant at a function held at a relative’s house. The appellant used to
speak to her mother over the phone and also communicate with the victim.
Subsequently, he introduced himself as Vishal, the son of the Accused, and
developed a romantic relationship with the victim. On 03.05.2021, the appellant
induced the victim to accompany him to Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of
marrying her. Believing the appellant’s persuasive words, the victim proceeded to
Thakkalai, then to Kaliyakkavilai, and thereafter to Thiruvananthapuram. The
19/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

appellant claimed that his name was Vishal and that he resembled his father,
Vincent. Thereafter, by threatening her and taken her to rental house at Mavadi
and committed the penetrative sexual assault several time between 04.05.2021 and
06.05.2021. Thereafter, the victim cried and pleaded with the appellant to send
her back to her mother. The appellant took her from Thiruvananthapuram to
Thakkalai and thereafter to Kaliyakkavilai, and left her at Thakkalai bus stand.
P.W.2 subsequently reached her house and informed P.W.1 about the occurrence.
40. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that she was working at a
brick kiln and used to leave for work at 7.00 a.m. and return home at 6.30 p.m. On
04.05.2021, at about 6.30 p.m., when she returned home, she found that the victim
was missing. On 05.05.2021, she lodged Ex.P1 complaint before the All Women
Police Station, Marthandam. The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by the
testimonies of P.W.3 and P.W.4.
41. From the above evidences, it is clear that the appellant had introduced
himself to the victim as Vishal, developed a relationship with her by making her to
believe that he was indeed Vishal, and induced her to believe that he was in love
with her. Further, he induced her to go over Tiruvandram and thereafter, taken to
Mavadi and committed penetrative sexual assault at several time. The testimony
of the victim was also corroborated by medical evidence. Although the Forensic
20/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Science report reveals that no semen or spermatozoa were detected, the evidence
of Dr. Bibinsi (P.W.13) shows that the samples were collected on 08.05.2021, two
days after the incident. Furthermore, the absence of semen does not weaken the
prosecution's case. For the offence of penetrative sexual assault, the presence of
spermatozoa is not strictly required; the absence of the hymen clearly indicates
that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all
reasonable doubts.
42. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana reported in
(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 61, upon observing contradictions in the
testimony of the victim and the absence of injuries on her private parts and other
body parts, disbelieved her evidence and acquitted the Accused. However, a
perusal of that judgment reveals that it was a case of alleged gang rape, where the
trial court noted discrepancies in the victim's testimony. Furthermore, the
prosecution failed to examine her mother and sister, despite its case being that the
victim met them after the incident. Given the absence of external injuries and the
material omissions in the evidence, the Apex Court disbelieved the victim's
version and acquitted the Accused.
That is not the case here. The Accused cheated
the victim by impersonation and induced her to travel to Thiruvananthapuram. She
21/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

left her home without her mother’s knowledge; when she subsequently returned,
her mother immediately lodged complaint with police. Therefore, the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts
of the present case.
43. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the decision of
this Court in Saravanan v. State by the Inspector of Police, reported in (2026) 3
MLJ (Crl) 284, wherein it was held that the Court can rely upon the sole testimony
of a victim child as a "sterling witness" without any further corroboration,
provided the quality and credibility of the testimony are exceptionally high and the
statement remains consistent from beginning to end without casting any doubt on
the prosecution case. However, the said decision has no application to the present
case, as the evidence of the victim child is cogent, clear, and fully corroborated by
the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 3, and 4, as well as by the medical evidence on record.
44. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak vs. State of Government of NCT Delhi
reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1914 , wherein it was held that the testimony of
the child victim cannot be mechanically accepted as the gospel truth in every case
without scrutiny. The Court cannot mechanically accept the ipsi dixit of the
22/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

prosecution regarding the statutory presumption, nor apply it to every prosecution
automatically. Even if the prosecution story is inherently improbable, the benefit
of doubt at the end of the trial must go to the advantage of the Accused to hold
him not guilty. The reverse burden of proof under statutory provisions does not
shift or alter the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt normally applicable in
criminal cases.
45. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tilku alias Tilak Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
reported in 2025 (1) MWN (Crl) 210 (SC), wherein no injuries were found on the
body of the prosecutrix, who had voluntarily traveled with the Accused to various
places for 20 days before reaching their final destination. Relying on the same
principle, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the testimony of the prosecutrix and
acquitted the Accused. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since
the victim had traveled a distance of 200 kms during the Covid – 19 pandemic
period, her plea of involuntary movement or coercion cannot be accepted.
46. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the decision of
this Court in Murugesan Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police reported in
2025(1) MNW (Crl.) 233 , wherein the trial Court convicted the Accused relying to
the evidence of the victim without testing her credibility by way of cross-
23/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

examination. Therefore, a fair trial was denied to the Accused, rendering the
conviction and sentence unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to afford a
sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the victim. However, in the case on hand,
the victim as well as the other prosecution witnesses were elaborately cross-
examined by the defense.
47. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
decision in of the High Court of Calcutta in Maharaj Halder vs. State of West
Bengal and another reported in 2026 SCC Online Cal 8285 , to contend that to
act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a victim, her evidence must be of
sterling quality, as criminal jurisprudence mandates proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
48. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Rajendran
v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Fort All Women Police Station, Trichy
District in Crl.A(MD)No.784 of 2022 , wherein, this Court disbelieved the
testimony of the victim on the ground that she was tutored by the police officers
and her parents. Therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts of the
present case, as the defense has failed to elicit any circumstances to discredit or
impair the credibility of the victim's evidence. Therefore, this Court is for the
considered view that the conviction of the appellant/Accused for the offences
24/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

punishable under Sections 415 r/w. 419, 360 and 366 of IPC as well as Section
5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, is liable to be sustained.
49. However, insofar as the offence under Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO
Act is concerned, a person is said to commit sexual assault when such person
repeatedly or constantly follows, watches, or contacts a child. In the present case,
the appellant contacted the victim over the phone, induced her by impersonating
himself as “Vishal,” led her to believe he loves her, and persuaded her to travel
from her native village to Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the offence
under Section 11(iv) punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
50. Since the appellant induced the victim to travel and engaged in sexual
intercourse with her, the offence under Section 366 of IPC is clearly attracted.
Further, as he falsely claimed himself as Vishal and cheated the victim by
impersonation, the offence under Section 416 r/w 419 of IPC is also made out.
The evidence of the victim clearly discloses that between 04.05.2021 and
06.05.2021, the Accused committed penetrative sexual assault on several time.
Therefore, the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act stands proved.
51. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this
25/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

Court is of the opinion that while confirming the conviction, the period of
sentence imposed on the appellant is to be reduced to the one of minimum one i.e
from 25 years to 20 years.
52. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Protection of Children
from the Sexual offences Act cases in Nagercoil in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2021, dated
13.04.2023, is hereby confirmed. The sentence is reduced to 20 years of rigorous
imprisonment. However, the fine and default sentence imposed by the Trial Court
is sustained.
26.10.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
am
26/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Protection of Children
from the Sexual offences Act cases.
Nagercoil.
2. The Inspector of police
All Women Police Station,
Marthandam, Kanyakumari District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
27/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )

S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
am
Judgment made in
Crl.A(MD)No.389 of 2023
26.10.2026
28/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 05:52:03 pm )