The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s age through admissible evidence.
Justice N. Mala delivered the judgment on February 16, 2026, while allowing Crl.A.(MD).No.1300 of 2025 filed by Mahesh against the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagercoil All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari District (Crime No.12 of 2018).
The High Court set aside the conviction passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases at Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil.
Trial Court Conviction
The appeal challenged the judgment dated June 23, 2025 in Spl.SC.No.24 of 2020.
The Special Court had convicted the appellant under:
- Section 366 IPC
- Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act
The trial court sentenced him to:
- 5 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹1,000 fine under Section 366 IPC
- 20 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,000 fine under the POCSO Act
Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
According to the prosecution, the victim was about 16 years old at the time of the incident. She knew the appellant because he was a friend of her elder brother.
On March 3, 2018, the appellant allegedly confessed his love to the victim over the phone and expressed his intention to marry her. Her parents were planning to arrange her marriage against her wishes.
The prosecution claimed that the appellant persuaded her to leave home.
On March 4, 2018, the victim left her house and joined the appellant. He allegedly took her to his uncle’s residence, where they claimed to have married.
The prosecution further alleged that the appellant repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim until his arrest on April 5, 2018.
The case surfaced after an anonymous call to the 1098 Child Help Line. Officials from the District Child Protection Unit then brought the appellant and the victim to the All Women Police Station. The police registered a complaint and an FIR.
During trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses (PW1–PW17) and marked 23 exhibits.
Arguments Before The High Court
Counsel for the appellant K. Karnan argued that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant due to a romantic relationship. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and argued that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offences.
Opposing the appeal, Additional Public Prosecutor A. Thiruvadikumar contended that the trial court had properly analysed the evidence. He relied on the victim’s testimony and medical evidence to support the conviction.
Court Finds Age Not Proved
The High Court examined the documents used to establish the victim’s age.
The prosecution relied on xerox copies of the birth certificate and transfer certificate (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4). The Court noted that the victim admitted that the original documents existed but were never produced in court.
The Court stressed that primary evidence is the rule, while secondary evidence is an exception.
It further observed that secondary evidence becomes admissible only when the party explains the non-production of original documents.
The Court relied on Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan (2026 SCC OnLine 169). The decision reiterates that secondary evidence is inadmissible unless the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act are satisfied.
The Court therefore held that the trial court committed a “fatal error” by relying on inadmissible documents to determine the victim’s age.
Once those documents were excluded, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact required to invoke the POCSO Act.
High Court Acquits Appellant
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges.
It also directed that since the appellant was reportedly in jail, he must be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.
Court Observes Case Involved Adolescent Relationship
While concluding the judgment, the Court observed that the case appeared to arise from a consensual adolescent relationship. Criminal proceedings followed due to parental opposition.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Anurudha (2026 SCC OnLine SC 40). That judgment discussed concerns regarding misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving adolescent relationships.
Directions For POCSO Awareness
The Court emphasised the importance of awareness regarding the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
It referred to Section 43 of the POCSO Act, which requires the government to widely publicise the law.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to:
- Implement awareness measures under Section 43
- Conduct awareness programmes in government schools and colleges
- Consider similar initiatives in private educational institutions
The Chief Secretary must file a status report.
The matter has been posted for June 3, 2026.
Case: Mahesh v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagercoil AWPS, Kanyakumari District
