(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to call for the records and allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and conviction dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Mahila Court, Pudukottai in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017 and acquit the appellant.)

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017, dated 06.05.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is the daughter of the complainant. The victim girl is aged about 16 years. The complainant had been running a welding work shop in Gandhi Nagar 1st street in the name of Jeeva and the accused Sarankumar had been working as a coolie in the complainant work shop and when the complainant had not been in the house, the accused had gone to the complainant house and had been talking to the victim girl often and in the said circumstances on 30.05.2017 at around 2.00 p.m, when the victim girl had been alone in the house, the accused had gone to the complainant house and had used sweat coated words to the victim girl that he would marry her and had kidnapped her to Thiruppur along with 5 sovereign of gold jewels and Rs.10,000/- cash from the house and there in Chetty Palayam had made the victim girl stay for nearly a month and had committed penetrative sexual assault on her many times with him. On the complaint lodged by her father, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.264 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of IPC altered into 363 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

3. The Trial Court framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC 6 of POCSO Act.

4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and 5 (l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. The sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court pending the appeal, on the grounds that he had married the victim girl and the victim girl has no objection. Today, the appellant and the victim girl present before this Court and the victim girl has no objection to set aside the conviction and sentence since they are living together happily. After suspending the sentence, the appellant registered their marriage with the victim before the registering authority. Today, the certificate of their marriage registration has been produced before this Court. Both the appellant and the victim girl appeared before this Court. The victim girl deposed that she married with the appellant and their marriage was also registered and she is living with the appellant happily.

8. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2025 SCC Online SC 614], wherein, it is held that in a case of this nature, where the victim, after attaining majority has married the accused and their marriage is also registered, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution and that it would cause undue hardship to all the parties concerned.

9. Now, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent confirmed that both the appellant and the victim girl have married, their marriage was duly registered with the registering authority and they are living happily.

10. In view of the above, in order to meet the ends of justice, if the conviction is allowed to stand, no useful purpose would be served. Therefore, the order of the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017,06.05.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment made in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2017, dated 06.05.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.