The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted in a POCSO case, setting aside his convictions under the SC/ST Act and for attempted abetment of suicide while reducing a life sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026, in a case arising from a relationship between a young man and a girl who was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and had known the accused since her school days. The prosecution alleged that the accused promised to marry her and repeatedly had sexual relations with her while she was a minor. The girl later became pregnant and gave birth to a child. DNA evidence produced during the investigation was relied upon to establish paternity.
The trial court had convicted the accused under provisions of the POCSO Act, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 306 read with Section 511 of the IPC relating to attempted abetment of suicide. It imposed imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under the POCSO Act along with other sentences.
One of the principal arguments before the High Court was that the prosecution had failed to establish the victim's age. The Bench rejected that contention after examining the birth certificate and school records.
The Court found that the victim's date of birth was 18 May 2003 and held that she had not attained 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, she was a "child" within the meaning of the POCSO Act.
The defence also argued that the relationship was consensual and romantic. However, the Bench held that such a defence could not override the statutory protection granted to minors.
The Court observed,
“A child below 18 years is incapable of giving consent in the eyes of law.” It further noted that even a consensual romantic relationship involving a child would attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.
The High Court then examined whether the offences under the SC/ST Act had been established.
After reviewing the evidence, the Bench found that the relationship between the parties had developed over a period of time and was not based on the victim's caste identity. The Court noted that the relationship arose from mutual attraction and not because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
Referring to earlier precedents, the Court held that offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act require proof that the offence was committed on account of the victim's caste status.
The Bench concluded that those ingredients were absent in the present case and held that the SC/ST Act charges were not made out.
The Court also considered the allegation that the accused had abetted the victim's attempt to commit suicide.
According to the prosecution, the accused had allegedly told the victim to "go and die." The Bench held that such a statement by itself did not amount to instigation as required under the law governing abetment of suicide.
The Court additionally noted doubts arising from the medical evidence regarding the alleged consumption of poison. It found that the prosecution had failed to prove either intentional instigation or active provocation.
As a result, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 306 read with
While upholding the conviction under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the High Court revisited the sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Bench held that the enhanced punishment introduced through the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act could not be applied retrospectively because the offence had occurred before the amendment came into force. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, the Court ruled that a person cannot be subjected to a greater punishment than what was prescribed at the time of the offence.
Taking into account the age of the accused at the time of the incident and the nature of the relationship, the Court found the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to be excessive.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 306 read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
However, it upheld the conviction under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and modified the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, with a further one-year simple imprisonment in default of payment.
Case Details
Case Title: Arumugam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.A.(MD) No.125 of 2024
Judges: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: 15 June 2026
