SARAVANAN @ SARAVANAKUMAR vs STATE BY

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No.723 of 2018
CNR: {HCMA013825592018}
Saravanan @ Saravanakumar
S/o.Raju,
Love Dale,
Gandhipettai,
Uthagai,
The Nilgiris.
...Appellant/Accused
Vs
State By
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Udhagai Nagar Sub Division,
All Women Police Station,
Uthagamandalam,
The Nilgiris.
Cr. No.06 of 2015.
...Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. praying
to set aside the Judgment of the learned District Sessions Judge,
Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris, in S.C.No.42 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018
and acquit the appellant herein from the said charge.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
For Appellant: Mr.T.Shanmugam
For Respondent: Ms.Sharada Vivek,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assisted by
Mr.M.Arul Raj.
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 22.10.2018
passed in S.C. No. 42 of 2016 by the learned District Sessions Judge,
Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris, convicting and sentencing the
appellant/accused as follows:
Offence under Section Sentence imposed
417 of IPC To undergo one year RI and to pay a
fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to
undergo three months RI;
2 (i). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the
victim/P.W.1 were known to each other; that on 27.07.2014, the appellant
took the victim to a cottage and, on the promise of marriage and by
suppressing that he was already married, had sexual intercourse with the
victim; that thereafter, till 21.10.2015, the appellant had sexual
intercourse with the victim on several occasions; and that the victim
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community, and hence, the appellant
committed the offence under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)
of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
(ii) On a complaint [Ex.P1] given by the victim, P.W.1, an FIR was
registered in Crime No. 6 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 417 and
376 of the IPC r/w 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
P.W.25 and P.W.26 conducted the investigation and handed over the
investigation to P.W.27, the Inspector of Police, who filed the final report
for the offence under Section 420 r/w 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act (POA),
1989, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.
(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was taken on file as
S.C.No.42 of 2016 by the learned District Sessions Judge,
Udhagamandalam, the Nilgiris. The Trial Court framed charges against
the accused for the offences under Sections 417 of the IPC and 3(1)(w)
SC/ST (POA) Act. During the trial, when questioned, the accused
pleaded 'not guilty'.
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
(iv) Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 27
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.27 and marked 24 exhibits as Exs.P1 to
Ex.P24. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.
The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on
his side.
(v) After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held
the appellant guilty of offence under 417 IPC and sentenced him as stated
in paragraph No.1 of this Judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, the accused had preferred the instant appeal.
3. Mr.T.Shanmugam, the learned counsel for the appellant, would
submit that the prosecution failed to establish that the consent of the
victim was due to the alleged false representation of the appellant; that
the evidence of the victim would suggest that the victim and the appellant
had a continuous relationship for more than 1 year; that the evidence also
would suggest that the victim knew that the appellant was already
married to P.W.15 and yet consented to have a relationship with him;
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
therefore, the offence under section 417 of IPC is not made out, and he
prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
4. Ms. Sharadha Vivek, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
for the respondent, per contra, submitted that there is absolutely no
evidence to infer that the victim knew that the appellant was already
married; that the victim’s evidence is cogent and convincing and would
reveal that she came to know that the appellant was already married only
when she, along with her parents, went to the house of the appellant and
therefore, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned Judgement
and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. As stated above, the prosecution had examined 27 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.27. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mother
and father of the victim, respectively, and corroborate the evidence of the
victim/P.W.1. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the witnesses to the confession
statement recorded from the appellant and the witness to the observation
mahazar/Ex.P2. Both P.W.4 and P.W.5 turned hostile. P.W.6 was
working as a cook in a hotel, and he is a hearsay witness who turned
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
hostile. P.W.7 is a neighbour of the accused and is a hearsay witness and
would admit that he was not personally aware of the relationship between
the appellant and the victim. P.W.8 was working as a room boy in the
Mothimenar Cottage, where one of the alleged occurrences is said to have
taken place and also turned hostile. P.W.9 was working as a room boy in
the said cottage and also turned hostile.
6. P.W.10 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had issued the
Community Certificate for the appellant. P.W.11 is the Tahsildar who had
issued the Community Certificate for the victim. P.W.12 is the Doctor
who had examined the appellant and had issued a potency certificate
[Ex.P9]. P.W.13 is the Doctor who was working in the Government
Hospital, Uthagai, and had directed the victim to be examined by the
Maternity Hospital. P.W.14 is a Doctor who examined the victim and had
issued the medical report [Ex.P11] and she had opined that it cannot be
said that the victim was not subjected to sexual intercourse recently.
P.W.15 is the wife of the appellant and would state that the appellant did
not have any relationship with the victim. She did not support the
prosecution case. P.W.16 is the Forensic Science Expert who had issued
FSL report [Ex.P14]. P.W.17 is the Doctor who had determined the age
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
of the victim and stated that her age could be between 20 and 22 years.
P.W.18 was working in the Corporation and had marked the birth
certificate of the appellant’s son as Ex.P17. P.W.19 is the lady constable
who took the victim to the hospital, and P.W.20 is the constable who took
the accused from the jail for medical examination. P.W.21 is the
constable who assisted the investigating officer. P.W.22, who was
working as the District Munsif, Vellore and had recorded the 164
statement of the victim, Ex.P18. P.W.23 was working as a Social Welfare
Officer and had counselled the victim. P.W.24 is the Sub Inspector of
Police who registered the FIR. P.W.25, 26 and 27 are the investigating
officers.
7. From the above narration, it would be clear that most of the
witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution turned hostile. The
victim's evidence is sought to be corroborated by her parents, P.W.2 and
P.W.3. According to the victim, on the promise of marriage, the appellant
had sexual intercourse on more than thirty occasions between the month
of May 2014 and October 2015. The victim had deposed that she was not
aware of the fact that the appellant was already married. The defence of
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
the appellant, however, is that even according to the victim, the appellant
and the victim met during the marriage of the victim's relative at Ooty on
09.05.2014, in which the appellant's wife was also present, and therefore,
the alleged false representation has been invented to attract the offence
under Section 417 of the IPC.
8. Though contradictions between the Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the depositions have
been elicited in the cross-examination, this Court is of the view that the
fact that the victim had not informed the learned Magistrate about the
appellant taking her to the cottage on 21.10.2015 would be of no avail to
the defence. The victim has consistently stated that she had a consensual
relationship from May 2014 to October 2015. Nothing has been elicited
in the cross-examination to disbelieve that version of the victim.
9. That apart, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of
the victim to show that she knew that the appellant was already married
to P.W.15. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the
finding of guilt recorded by the Court below. However, considering the
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
nature of the relationship, the period of the relationship, and the age of
the appellant, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be
met if the sentence imposed on the appellant is modified.
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction
of the appellant for the offence under Section 417 of IPC is confirmed.
However, the sentence imposed for the said offence is reduced to the
period already undergone. (The appellant was in custody from 23.11.2015
to 29.12.2015). The fine amount imposed on the appellant by the trial
Court i.e., Rs.50,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand Only) and in default to suffer 4 months SI. From out of
the fine, Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only)
shall be paid as compensation to the victim. The fine shall be deposited
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The fine amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted against the
fine amount imposed now.
13-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dk
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
Copy to:
1. The District Sessions Judge,
Uthagamandalam,
The Nilgiris.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Udhagai Nagar Sub Division,
All Women Police Station,
Uthagamandalam,
The Nilgiris.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )

2026:MHC:4261
CRL A No.723 of 2018
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
dk
CRL A No. 723 of 2018
13-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:05:12 pm )