THE STATE REP BY vs BALASENTHIL
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011258332021}
The State Rep By
Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station,
Udumalpet, Cr.No.2/2018.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Balasenthil
2. Aruna
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 378(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the acquittal rendered in judgment dated 28.02.2019 made in
Spl. Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 on the file of the Magalir
Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahila Court], Tiruppur, by allowing this
criminal appeal.
For Appellant(s): Ms.Sharada Vivek
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s): Ms.Sridevi S
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the judgment of aquittal passed by the
learned Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, in
Spl. Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 dated 28.02.2019.
__________
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondents/accused in
Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2018 had an illicit relationship; that the second
respondent herein was married to the defacto complainant and a girl child
was born on 28.10.2008; that on 19.06.2018, when the defacto
complainant had gone out of station, the first respondent visited the
house of the second respondent; that at about 7:00 PM, when the second
respondent went to a shop, the first respondent had hugged the victim
from behind and groped her breast. It is the further case of the
prosecution that the victim did not inform about this incident to anyone;
that on 20.06.2018, the defacto complainant, the second respondent and
the victim went to Jolarpet and they returned to their home at Udumalpet
on 23.06.2018; that the defacto complainant, along with the victim , left
the house at about 11:00 AM and when they returned by 1:00 PM, they
found the second respondent missing in the house and that he had lodged
a “woman missing” complaint on 23.06.2018; that the victim later
informed him about the occurrence that happened on 19.06.2018; that
P.W.2 hence lodged a complaint on 01.07.2018 against the respondents
herein, which was registered in Crime No.2 of 2018 under Sections 9 (m)
and (i) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
1
2012 .
3. In the complaint, P.W.2 , the father of the victim, has stated that
the first respondent had caused injury to the breast of the victim and in
1
hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”.
__________
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
her hand and that the respondents were in the habit of administering
sleeping medicine to the victim when P.W.2 was not at home, so that they
could carry on with their illicit relationship. The First Information Report,
was marked as Exhibit P.11 ; that after investigation, the Investigating
Officer P.W.11 filed the final report for the offence under Sections 9(m)
r/w 10 and Sections 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 25 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exhibits P.1
to P.14 . The Trial Court found that the complaint was motivated; that
P.W.2 was aggrieved by the illicit relationship between the respondents;
that there was no evidence to establish that the victim was administered
sleeping medicine and that the victim has given contrary versions and
that the complaint was filed belatedly as an afterthought.
5. Ms.Sharada Vivek , learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant, would submit that the victim’s evidence is cogent and
convincing; that even assuming that P.W.2’s complaint was motived,
there is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses and that therefore, the
findings of the Trial Court are perverse, warranting interference.
6. As stated above, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1
is the victim; P.W.2 is the father of the victim ( defacto complainant);
P.W.3 is the Doctor who had made entries in the Accident Register for the
__________
Page No.3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
victim and marked Exhibit P.3 ; P.W.4 is the Doctor who had conducted
medical examination of the victim and marked Exhibit P.4 , the medical
examination report; P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined the accused and
issued potency certificate ( Exhibit P.5 ); P.W.6 is the observation mahazar
witness; P.W.7 , who was examined to establish the witness to the
confession statement of the accused, turned hostile; P.W.8 is working in
the Child Line Office at Tiruppur District and would state about examining
the victim and advising her to give a complaint; P.W.9 , who was
examined to prove the signature in the confession statement of the
accused, turned hostile; P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police, who registered
the First Information Report and handed over the investigation to P.W.11 ;
P.W.11 , after conducting investigation, has filed the final report.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused hugged the
victim from behind and groped her breast. In the Chief Examination, the
victim would submit that on the date of occurrence, the first respondent
hugged her five to six times, pressed her hands and she came out
running from the house. However, in her statement before the Magistrate,
she had narrated the incident differently and stated that the first
respondent attempted to hug and kiss her and she came out running from
her house.
8. In fact, the Investigating Officer P.W.11 , in the Cross
Examination, has admitted that the victim had in her Section 164 Cr.P.C.
__________
Page No.4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
statement only stated that the second respondent attempted to hug and
kiss the victim. The Doctor P.W.3 , made entries in the Accident Register,
which is marked as Exhibit P.3 . The Doctor P.W.4 had opined that she did
not find any external injuries on the victim. In fact, the Doctor has
observed as follows: “No clinical evidence of recent sexual contact”.
9. It is seen from P.W.2 ’s evidence that his version is that the victim
was injured in the breast and hands. But, in the Cross Examination, P.W.2
would admit that he did not make any such statement to the Police or in
the complaint. A reading of the complaint also would suggest that P.W.2
was aggrieved by the fact that the respondents were in an illicit
relationship. In fact, he had also alleged that they were in the habit of
administering sleeping medicine to the victim to carry on with their illicit
relationship, which has not been proved.
10. Therefore, considering all the above facts, the Trial Court found
that it is highly unsafe to hold the respondents guilty on the sole
testimony of the victim, whose evidence suffers from inherent
improbabilities and contradictions. The Trial Court also found that there
was a delay in filing of the complaint. The evidence suggest that P.W.2
was aggrieved due to the illicit relationship of the respondents. Therefore,
exaggeration and false implication cannot be ruled out.
__________
Page No.5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
11. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the Trial Court
is plausible and is based on appreciation of evidence. The findings are, in
any case, not perverse, warranting an interference in the appeal against
acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
12. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the
scheduled fee to Ms. S.Sridevi , learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
respondents.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
( drm )
__________
Page No.6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
To:
1. The Inspector Of Police,
All Women Police Station, Udumalpet, Cr.No.2/2018.
2. The Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahila Court], Tiruppur.
3. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Chennai.
4. The Secretary
High Court Legal Services Committee,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
( drm )
CRL A No. 179 of 2022
15-10-2026
__________
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2026 01:25:34 pm )