CRL OP/22685/2026 of The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Po Vs Karuppaiya on 7 September 2026

ORDER

The State had preferred the present petition seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal rendered in Spl.S.C.No.39 of 2020 by judgment dated 03.01.2025.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., the minor victim girl, PW1, whose date of birth is 08.06.2003, aged about 16 years, 9 months and 24 days, was alone at her house. At that time, the respondent came to the house, promised that he would marry her and thereafter forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. On 02.05.2020, the minor victim girl complained of stomach pain and was not keeping good health. Hence, PW2, mother of the victim, took her to the Government Primary Health Centre, Neikuppai, where PW4, Doctor, examined the victim girl and found that her menstruation period had been skipped, as informed by the victim and her mother, and thereafter she was referred to the Government General Hospital, Perambalur. PW10 examined the victim on 03.05.2020 and the ultrasound scan taken on 04.05.2020 showed that the victim was pregnant for about seven weeks. On 03.05.2020, the complaint was received and the case was registered. Information was sent to the police. Thereafter, PW14 recorded the statement of the victim and her mother and took up investigation. A case was registered in Crime No.11 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 5(i) r/w 6 and 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. The scene of occurrence was inspected and observation mahazar and rough sketch were prepared in the presence of PW5 and PW9. The elder sister of the victim, PW6, was examined. Villagers PW7 and PW8 were examined. The respondent was arrested on the same day at about 6.15 p.m. The victim appeared before the learned Magistrate on 01.06.2020 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. PW12 escorted the respondent and medical examination was conducted. PW13 escorted the victim to the hospital on 03.05.2020 and medical examination was conducted.

3. During trial, PW14 was transferred and thereafter PW15 took over the investigation. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. During trial, PW1 to PW15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondent, DW1, a neighbour and resident of the village, was examined, who deposed about the corona period and that the people were confined to their houses on 01.04.2020.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) is that in this case PW1, the victim, had clearly deposed that when she was alone at her house on 01.04.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., the respondent, who is a neighbour, had entered the house and, on a false promise of marriage, had committed penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter, when she was feeling sick and complained of stomach pain to her mother, her menstrual period had skipped. PW2 took the victim on 02.05.2020 to PW4, Doctor attached to the Primary Health Centre, and on medical examination, pregnancy was confirmed. Thereafter, she was referred to the Government General Hospital, Perambalur. PW10 examined the victim and the ultrasound scan showed that she was pregnant for about seven weeks and the medical report was marked as Ex.P6. The victim, being a minor, is proved by the examination of PW3, who had given the age certificate, Ex.P3. PW5, a villager, in whose presence the observation mahazar and rough sketch were prepared, had not supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, the villagers PW7 and PW8 had not supported the case of the prosecution. PW2, mother, and PW6, elder sister, corroborated the evidence of PW1, the victim. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had been consistent and the medical evidence of PW11, the Doctor, confirms the medical fitness and potency of the respondent and the medical report was marked as Ex.P7. Thus, the prosecution had clearly proved that the victim, a minor, was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and became pregnant. The victim also identified the respondent as the person responsible for her pregnancy.

5. But the Trial Court had given too much weightage to the medical evidence and wrongly calculated that, as the pregnancy was of seven weeks on 04.05.2020, the penetrative sexual assault as claimed by the prosecution on 01.04.2020 was not possible. Further, it was during the corona period. PW2 had a fight with her husband, Ganesan, and was living separately. Ganesan was a neighbour of the victim. PW2's sister's son had gone to the house of Ganesan and attempted to attack him with a bottle. The respondent had intervened and saved Ganesan and chased away the sister's son. Thereafter, there had been animosity between the respondent and PW2. Further, in this case, though the foetus is said to have been aborted between 07.05.2020 and 08.05.2020, the foetus was not collected and it was not proved that the respondent was responsible for the pregnancy. Thus, giving the benefit of doubt and acquitting the respondent is not proper.

6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials and on going through the evidence, it is seen that in this case the specific case of PW1, the victim, is that on 01.04.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., when the victim was alone, the respondent had come to the house and committed penetrative sexual assault. The victim was examined by PW10, Doctor, on 03.05.2020 and the ultrasound scan taken on 04.05.2020 showed that she was pregnant for about seven weeks. In this case, admittedly, the foetus got aborted between 07.05.2020 and 08.05.2020. The case came to be registered on 03.05.2020. The investigation was in progress and PW14 had not taken any steps, and neither PW10, Doctor, nor PW13 had taken any steps to collect the foetus to confirm the paternity.

7. In this case, the villagers, namely PW5, PW7 and PW8, had not supported the case of the prosecution. There is nothing to show that the respondent had entered the house and committed penetrative sexual assault on 01.04.2020. The medical evidence does not establish that the respondent was the biological father of the foetus. Further, there had been animosity which is confirmed by PW1, and PW2, further de facto complainant her husband got separated and living separately and her husband Ganesan is the neighbour of the respondent. The respondent had come and supported Ganesan when he was attempted to be attacked. It is seen that the respondent was a college student at that point of time, studying B.E. EEE, and it was the corona period and all were asked to stay indoors. DW1 also confirms all villagers not permitted to move out and PW2 and others were confined inside the house on 01.04.2020. Thus, the respondent entering the house and committing penetrative sexual assault is not possible. Added to this, the medical evidence does not establish that the respondent responsible for the pregnancy and no DNA test was conducted. The Trial Court, on the evidence and materials, had rightly considered the same and passed a detailed and well-reasoned judgment and acquitted the respondent.

8. Further, the Apex Court in Anjan Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal, Crl.A.No.298 of 2006, and the other judgments relied upon by the Trial Court, has held that when two views are possible on the evidence and materials available on record, the view which is favourable to the accused has to be given due consideration and the order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless the findings are perverse.

9. In this case, this Court finds no perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant leave, and the leave petition dismissed. Consequently the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur District, in Spl.S.C.No.39 of 2020 dated 03.01.2025, is hereby confirmed.

10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No CDA To

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur District

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Managalamedu, Perambalur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. CDA CRL OP No. 22685 of 2026 07-09-2026