Muthupandi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Thirumangalam

Court
Madras High Court

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011496362026}
Muthupandi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by the Inspector of Police,
AWPS -Thirumangalam Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No. 27 of 2024)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415 of BNSS, to call for
the records in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2025 dated 08.10.2026 on the file of the
learned Principal Special Court for trial of POCSO Act Cases, Madurai
and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.S.Arokia Selva Ramesh
For Respondent(s) :Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 08.10.2026
passed by the Principal Special Court for Trial of POCSO Act Cases,
Madurai, in Spl.S.C.No.65 of 2025. By that judgment, the appellant
was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the POCSO Act”) and sentenced to
twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under
Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (“the PCM
Act”).
2.The Case of Prosecution
The prosecution alleges that on 10.01.2024 the appellant married a girl
aged fourteen years and thereafter had a physical relationship with her.
She became pregnant and gave birth to a female child on 08.11.2024.
On an intimation received from the Government Hospital, a case in
Cr.No.27 of 2024 was registered against the appellant. He was arrested,
witnesses were examined, evidence was collected, and a final report
was filed. The final report invoked Section 9 of the PCM Act together
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3.Proceedings before the Special Court
(i) The appellant was released on bail during the investigation. The
Special Court took the final report on file and issued summons. After
the appellant appeared, copies of the prosecution documents were
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
furnished to him under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the case was posted for framing of
charges.
(ii) The ‘B Diary’ entry for 18.09.2026 records that the appellant was
present and was questioned about the offences and the accusation, and
that he admitted the accusation and pleaded guilty. The case was
thereafter reserved for judgment and was adjourned from time to time.
The judgment was finally pronounced on 08.10.2026. The learned Trial
Judge convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012
and sentenced him to undergo 20 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. The appellant was also
found guilty under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006, and convicted under Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence.
4.The appeal:
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the
appellant herein has preferred this appeal. During the course of hearing
of the application seeking suspension of sentence, this Court noticed a
fatal error committed by the learned Trial Judge in as much as no
charges had been framed and no trial had been conducted. The
judgment reflected that the accused had merely been questioned
generally with regard to the offence and the accusation against him and
that he pleaded guilty. In view of the serious procedural irregularity
noticed, the records were immediately called for, along with remarks of
the learned Trial Judge. The records were submitted with remarks.
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
5.Scrutiny of the record
(i) The records of the Special Court, which have been called for and
perused, do not bear out the premise on which the conviction rests. The
record is internally inconsistent. Although the remarks submitted by the
learned Trial Judge suggests that charges were framed on 18.09.2026,
the ‘B Diary’ of that date is clear that no formal charges were framed;
it says only that the appellant was questioned about the offence and
accusation. The recorded plea bears neither the signature of the
appellant nor that of the learned Special Judge. The judgment under
appeal likewise does not record that any charge was framed, read over
or explained to the appellant.
(ii) In her explanation, the learned Special Judge states that the charges
were framed, read over and explained. That statement finds no support
in the ‘B Diary’, in the plea record or in the judgment. A statement
made after the event cannot take the place of the contemporaneous
record, because the record of proceedings is the only reliable evidence
of what transpired in Court. It is also for this reason that the plea must
be recorded in the own words of the accused and authenticated by his
signature and that of the Judge, who recorded it.
6.Absence of a valid charge and plea
(i) Framing a charge is the foundation of a criminal trial. The charge
must state the offence with which the accused is charged, and it must
be read over and explained to him, whereupon he is asked whether he
pleads guilty or claims to be tried. These requirements are set out in the
BNSS provisions on framing of charge and on conviction upon a plea
of guilty (Sections 251 and 252 BNSS, corresponding to Sections 228
and 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). A plea of guilty has
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
legal effect only when it is a plea to a specific charge that the accused
has understood. A general admission of an unspecified “accusation” is
not such a plea.
(ii) Every accused is entitled to a fair trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. That right is meaningful only if the accused
knows precisely what he is alleged to have done and under which
provision of law. Where the charge is not properly framed, or is not
read over and explained, the accused is deprived of that notice, and the
resulting plea and conviction cannot be sustained. On this record, no
formal charge was framed, and the plea was neither properly recorded
nor authenticated. The conviction therefore rests on no valid plea at all.
7.A plea of guilty could not, in any event, support this conviction
(i) Even if charges had been framed under Section 9 of the PCM Act
and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and even if the appellant had pleaded
guilty to them, the Special Court ought not to have convicted him on
that plea. Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence
of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment and a maximum of death.
Although a court has a discretion to accept a plea of guilty, it should do
so with great caution in cases of this gravity. It must be satisfied that
the plea is voluntary, informed and unequivocal. Where the
consequences are severe, and the case of the prosecution depends on
foundational facts that have not been established, the proper course is
to proceed to trial.
(ii) The foundational fact in the present case is the age of the survivor
and her evidence regarding sexual intercourse. The offence of
aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO
Act, 2012, can be made out only if the survivor was below eighteen
years of age at the relevant time. That fact is itself an essential
ingredient of the offence, so an admission of the “accusation” cannot
dispense with proof of it, least of all where the admission was neither
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
preceded by a specific charge nor recorded in compliance with law.
The prosecution has the duty to prove the age of the survivor by
reliable evidence, such as school records, a birth certificate or, where
necessary, an ossification test.
(iii) The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012, arises
only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts. In this
case, no document was proved and no witness was examined. The
Special Court therefore had no material on which to record any finding
on age of the survivor. Without a finding that the survivor was below
eighteen, the provisions of the POCSO Act could not have been
invoked, and the conviction under Section 6 of that Act cannot be
sustained.
8.The conviction under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
The conviction under the PCM Act is erroneous for an additional
reason. The final report was filed under Section 9 of the PCM Act,
which punishes a male adult above eighteen years of age who contracts
a child marriage. The Special Court nevertheless convicted the
appellant under Section 10, which punishes a person who performs,
conducts, directs or abets a child marriage. These are distinct offences
with distinct ingredients, and the appellant was never charged under
Section 10. He could not be convicted of an offence of which he had no
notice and which was not framed against him. The prosecution case,
moreover, involved the appellant as the person who married the
survivor, not as a person who solemnized the marriage. This reinforces
the conclusion that the conviction lacks any proper basis in the charge.
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
9.Appeal or Revision?
(i)The next question that arises for consideration is whether the present
appeal is barred under Section 416 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 375 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Admittedly, the case was tried by
the Court of Session for an offence under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which prescribes
punishment extending to death.
(ii)A perusal of the records reveals that no formal charge was framed
against the accused as mandated under Section 251 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C). Consequently, the charge was neither read
over nor explained to the accused as contemplated under Section
251(2) of BNSS, 2023 (Section 228(2) Cr.P.C). The records also do not
disclose that the accused was properly called upon to plead guilty to the
accusation or that his plea was recorded in accordance with Section 252
of BNSS, 2023 (Section 229 Cr.P.C).
(iii)In the absence of a charge framed in accordance with law, there
was no legally framed accusation to which the accused could have
entered a plea of guilty in the manner contemplated under Section 252
of BNSS, 2023 (Section 229 Cr.P.C) Further, the purported plea does
not satisfy the requirements of a voluntary, unequivocal and conscious
admission of guilt. Therefore, the mere fact that the trial Court has
described the conviction as one based on a plea of guilty would not, by
itself, attract the statutory prohibition under Section 416 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 375 Cr.P.C).
(iv)It is pertinent to point out that Section 416 of BNSS, 2023 (Section
375 Cr.P.C) does not impose an absolute prohibition against an appeal
in every case where the trial Court records a conviction by referring to
a plea of guilty. The statutory restriction operates only when the
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
conviction is founded upon a legally valid plea of guilty. When the
very validity of the alleged plea is in question on account of non-
compliance with the mandatory procedure governing a Sessions trial,
the accused cannot be deprived of his statutory right of appeal by
resorting to the said provision.
(v)In such circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot be treated as
a judgment of conviction rendered upon a legally valid plea of guilty so
as to attract the bar under Section 416 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 375
Cr.P.C). The appeal is, therefore, maintainable.
10. Conclusion
(a) For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Special Court
cannot stand. No valid charge was framed; the plea of the
appellant was not properly recorded or authenticated; the age
of the survivor, the foundational facts, were never proved; and
the appellant was convicted under a provision different from
the one under which the final report was laid.
(b) Accordingly,
i. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed against
the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
Section 10 of the PCM Act, 2006, in Spl.S.C.No.65 of
2025 dated 08.10.2026 is set aside.
ii. The matter matter is remitted to the Principal
Special Court for Trial of POCSO Act Cases, Madurai.
The Special Court shall frame appropriate charges, read
them over and explain them to the appellant, record his
plea in accordance with law, conduct a trial, and dispose
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
of the case on its merits.
iii. The appellant, who was earlier released on bail,
shall continue on bail and shall co-operate with the Special
Court for the speedy disposal of the case.
iv. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the prosecution case
or on the guilt or innocence of the appellant. The Special
Court shall decide the matter independently, on the
evidence adduced before it.
v.The criminal appeal is allowed in the above terms.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rgm
To
1. Inspector Of Police, Awps-Thirumangalam
Police Station
Madurai
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
rgm
CRL A(MD) No. 1310 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 04:20:53 pm )