Synopsis

This judgment by the Madras High Court allows a criminal appeal filed by a 55-year-old accused who was convicted by the trial court under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) of the IPC. The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The court found critical lapses: (i) the age of the victim was not proved by any documentary evidence as required under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, read with the Supreme Court's decision in Yuvaprakash; (ii) the victim's testimony was inconsistent—her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. alleged only "touching," while her court testimony was a dramatic exaggeration of repeated penetrative assault, indicating tutoring; (iii) the medical evidence was contradictory and a crucial medical certificate was issued seven months after the incident; and (iv) the prosecution had not proved the foundational facts to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

1.  Heading for the judgment

Madras High Court acquits accused in POCSO case, holds that prosecution failed to prove victim's age by documentary evidence and victim's testimony was inconsistent and tutored.

Citation: Sundaram v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Crl.A.No.1270 of 2022, decided on 30.03.2026 (Madras High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan (Single Judge)
Core Law: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

2. Legal framework

This judgment is a detailed exposition of the evidentiary requirements in cases under the POCSO Act.

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act):
  Section 2(d): Defines a "child" as any person below the age of 18 years.
  Section 5(l): Defines "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" where the victim is below 12 years of age (though the court clarified this was not the charge here).
  Section 6: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
  Section 7: Defines "sexual assault."
  Section 12: Punishment for sexual harassment.
  Section 26(4): Provides for recording of statement of the child victim through audio-video means. The court held this is directory, not mandatory.
  Section 29: Creates a presumption that the accused committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. The court held that this presumption can only be invoked after the prosecution proves the foun

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.