KALYANASUNDARAM, AGED 55 YRS vs STATE REP. BY,

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 13-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 64 of 2018
CNR: {HCMA010483962018}
Kalyanasundaram, Aged 55 Yrs
S/o.Ekambaram,
No.531, 27th Block,
Sathiyamoorthy Nagar,
Vyasarpadi, Chennai-600 039,
..Appellant(s)
Vs
State Rep. By,
The Inspector Of Police,
W-5 All Women Police Station,
Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the judgment passed by the learned Special Court for
cases under POCSO Act 2012 / Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.11 of
2015 dated 22.01.2018.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent(s): Ms.Sharada Vivek
Additional Public Prosecutor
__________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused,
challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2018 in S.C.No.11 of 2015, on the
file of the learned Special Court for cases under POCSO Act 2012 /
Mahila Court, Chennai, convicting him for the offences under Section 10
of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment
for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. Further, the State Government was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the victim.
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, aged about 15
years was staying in a Home for abandoned children, viz., Rainbow
Home, run by the NGO managed by the defacto complainant [PW1] in
collaboration with the NGO ‘Seers’ run by the appellant; that the victim
was admitted to the Home on 16.05.2014; that on 03.07.2014 at about
nd
10.00 a.m., the appellant called the victim to a room in the 2 floor,
hugged and kissed her and inappropriately touched her breasts; that once
again on 04.07.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant hugged, kissed and
touched her breasts; and thus, committed the aforesaid offence.
__________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim informed
PW8, the Headmistress of the School, whose students also stayed in the
Rainbow Home, about the assault committed by the appellant; and that
PW8 thereafter, had informed PW11-Anitha, the Chief Educational
Officer (CEO), who on enquiry submitted a report to the Deputy
Commissioner of Education, who in turn informed PW1, the Executive
Director of Rainbow Home.
(iii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] lodged by PW1 on 10.07.2014 at
about 9.00 p.m., an FIR [Ex.P8] was registered in Cr.No.3 of 2014 by the
Inspector of Police [PW13]. The victim was subjected to medical
examination and after examining all the witnesses, the investigating
officer [PW13] filed the final report for the offence under Section 10 of
the POCSO Act, before the learned Special Court for cases under POCSO
Act 2012 / Mahila Court, Chennai.
(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was taken on file as
__________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
S.C.No.11 of 2015 and the trial Court framed charges against the
appellant/accused for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act,
and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.
(v) To prove its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses,
viz., PW1 to PW13 and marked eight documents, viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8,
besides one material object, viz., M.O.1. When the appellant was
questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant examined two
witnesses viz., DW1 and DW2 and did not mark any document on his
side.
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court believed the evidence of the victim and the other witnesses who
were examined to corroborate her version and hence, convicted and
sentenced the appellant as stated above.
3. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, the learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the prosecution case rests on the evidence of the
__________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
victim; that the victim’s evidence is not of sterling quality as could be
seen from her contrary versions made before the learned Magistrate and
her deposition before the Court; that several vital witnesses, to whom the
victim is stated to have informed about the occurrence before she is said
to have informed PW8, have not been examined; and that the prosecution
in any case, has not established the age of the victim, in the manner
known to law. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.
4. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor per
contra submitted that the victim’s evidence is cogent and convincing and
merely because she had not referred to the incident that had taken place
on 04.07.2014, her evidence as regards the incident that took place on
03.07.2014, cannot be disbelieved; that the minor contradictions in her
evidence cannot render her evidence unbelievable, as there was no reason
for her to falsely implicate the appellant; and that the delay in a case of
this nature would not be fatal to the prosecution as the victim was an
abandoned child and was under the control of the appellant in the Home
run by him. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
__________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
5. (i) As stated above, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
PW1 is the Executive Director of Rainbow Home Projects, who was
running the Home where the victim stayed, in collaboration with the
NGO, viz., ‘Seers’ run by the appellant. She speaks about the
information received by her through the Deputy Commissioner of
Education and about her conducting an enquiry and thereafter, severing
her relationship with the NGO run by the appellant. PW2 is the victim.
PW3 was working as a Programme Director at Rainbow Foundation and
would speak about receiving information from the Deputy Commissioner
of Education about the incident. PW4 was working as a Teacher at
Rainbow Home and she would state that the victim had not stated about
the incident to her. PW5 was working as a Security in the Rainbow
Home at that time and did not support the prosecution case and hence,
was treated hostile. PW6 and PW7, who were working in the Rainbow
Home, also turned hostile.
(ii) PW8 is the Headmistress to whom the victim is said to have
stated about the incidents. PW9 was working as the Teacher in the school
__________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
where PW8 was the Headmistress and she is a hearsay witness. PW10,
was working in the NGO-Rainbow Home and he is also a hearsay
witness. PW11 is the CEO, who received information from PW8 and
would speak about the receipt of the letter of the victim and about the
complaint of the victim. PW12 is the Doctor, who made entries in the
Accident Register [Ex.P4] and had also issued the medical certificates
[Ex.P5 & Ex.P6]. She had also marked the Forensic Sciences Laboratory
Report [Ex.P7]. PW13 is the investigating officer, who conducted the
investigation and filed the final report.
6. The victim’s version is sought to be corroborated by the
evidence of PW8 and PW11. The other witnesses are of no avail to the
prosecution as they had either turned hostile or had not received
information from the victim directly. It is the version of PW8 that the
victim came to her room at 12.30 p.m. on 04.07.2014 and that she told
PW8 that the appellant hugged and kissed her. PW8 had in turn informed
PW11 and PW11 in turn informed the Deputy Commissioner of
Education, who called the person in-charge of Rainbow Homes viz., the
PW1 to address that issue. Thereafter, PW1 is said to have conducted an
__________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
enquiry and found the statement of victim to be true and lodged the
complaint, accordingly.
7. PW8 did not state that the victim informed about the incident on
03.07.2014. PW1 who conducted an enquiry on instructions of the
Deputy Commissioner of Education had deposed that in the enquiry they
came to know that the accusation was true. The evidence of PW8 and
PW11 is based on what they heard and enquired from the victim.
Therefore, the prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of the victim
[PW2]. PW2 in her deposition in Court had only stated about the
occurrence that is said to have been taken place on 03.07.2014 and not
about any alleged occurrence on 04.07.2014. The relevant portion of
evidence-in-chief is extracted for better appreciation of her evidence.
“
3/7/2014 md;W vjphp vd;id nkny tUk;go
Tg;gpl;lhu;/ ehDk; nkny nghndd; vd;id jz;zPu;
vLj;J it vd;W brhd;dhu;/ ehd; jz;zPu;
vLj;Jf;bfhLj;njd;/ khoapy; fhag;nghl;oUe;j
Jzpbay;yhk; vLj;JtUk;go brhd;dhu;/ ehd;
vLj;Jf;bfhz;L fPnH te;njd; kPz;Lk; vd;id nkny
Tg;gpl;lhu; vd; nkny ifnghl;lhu;/ vd;id fl;og;gpoj;jhu;.
Kj;jk;bfhLj;jhu;. mg;nghJ ehd; mGnjd; ehd; fPnH
te;J mGjnghJ rikay; bra;j Mz;o Vd; mGfpwha;
__________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
vd;W nfl;lhu; ehd; mthplk; ele;jij brhd;ndd;/
mjd; gpwF me;j Mz;l;o ngha; nfl;fl;Lkh vd;W
nfl;lhu;fs; ehd; ntz;lhk; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ me;j
rikay; bra;a[k; Mz;l;o bgau; re;jpuh. mjd; gpwF
gphpad; mz;zd; te;jhu;. mthplKk; ele;j tpguj;ij
brhd;ndd;/ mjd; gpd;du; !;Ty; vr;/vk;/ vd;id nfl;lhu;
mthplKk; brhd;ndd; mjd; gpwF btspna ,Ue;J
epiwa ngu; te;J nfl;lhu;fs; ehd; mtu;fsplKk;
”
brhd;ndd;/
8. From the above deposition, it would be clear that the victim has
not supported the charge in respect of the incident that took place on
04.07.2014. She had also not referred to the alleged act of the appellant
of groping her breasts. Therefore, the prosecution has not established the
alleged occurrence that is said to have taken place on 04.07.2014 and the
fact that the appellant had touched the breast of the victim, as stated in the
charge.
9. To a specific question put by the appellant’s counsel in the cross-
examination, the victim would state that she had informed the learned
Magistrate and stated to the police that the appellant had touched her
breasts. However, as stated above, she had not said so in her chief-
__________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
examination. Therefore, it is clear that the victim has given inconsistent
versions.
10. It is also seen from the above extracted portion of PW2, the
victim had informed one Chandra immediately after the occurrence and
for the reasons best known, the prosecution had not examined the said
person. The victim is stated to have informed the incident to one Priyan
examined as DW2 and he would state that the victim had not stated the
occurrence as claimed by her. The defence had also examined one
witness working as a Manager in the Home. She would state that the
victim did not inform anyone about the alleged occurrence and her
version is false.
11. The prosecution claims that the victim was a child at the time
of the occurrence. The victim had in her evidence stated that she had
studied upto X standard. Therefore, in order to attract the offence under
Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the first foundational fact that the victim
was a child at the time of occurrence, has to be established by the
prosecution. The victim has stated her Date of Birth to be 01.03.1999.
__________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
No document has been produced by the prosecution to establish her date
of birth. The victim’s oral evidence is of no relevance in the absence of
any document to establish the age. In fact, the victim has named the
school and place where she studied. There is no reason why the
prosecution had not obtained the certificate from the said school. On the
other hand, they rely upon the victim’s own version and the evidence of
PW8 who would state that the victim may be aged about 15 years. No
ossification test was conducted to establish the age. In the absence of any
acceptable evidence to prove the age of the victim, it cannot be presumed
that the victim was a child at the time of the occurrence.
12. PW1 is said to have conducted the enquiry before she had
lodged a complaint. The enquiry report is marked as Ex.P3. Even in the
enquiry report it is stated that none of the other girls were aware of the
alleged occurrence. The victim alone is said to have stated to PW1 and
the others, who enquired her that the appellant hugged and kissed her.
The victim who is said to have initially stated about two occurrences and
about the groping of her breasts, has not stated so in the chief
examination. In fact, all the witnesses who are said to have heard about
__________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
occurrence through the victim, did not mention about the groping of the
breasts.
13. In a case of this nature, it is very difficult to separate the chaff
from the grain and believe the evidence of the victim only to the extent of
what she stated in the chief examination. The prosecution case entirely
rests on her sole testimony. The nature of allegations are such it cannot
be corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, unless the victim’s
evidence is of sterling quality, it would be highly unsafe to render a
finding of guilt on the basis of such an evidence, especially, in a case
where most of the witnesses to whom she is said to have confided
immediately after the occurrence, either deposed against her or were not
examined by the prosecution.
14. For all the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution had not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and
therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned judgment and
acquit the appellant.
__________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
15. As a result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction
and sentence passed in S.C.No.11 of 2015, dated 22.01.2018 on the file of
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for cases under POCSO Act, 2012/
Mahila Court, Chennai, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charge. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded.
Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ars
__________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )

CRL A No. 64 of 2018
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ars
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for cases under POCSO Act 2012 / Mahila Court,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector Of Police,
W-5 All Women Police Station,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery Judgment
CRL A No. 64 of 2018
26-10-2026
__________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 08:11:30 pm )