Sangiliappan v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Sangiliappan S/o. Ramasamy ..Appellant(s) Vs The Inspector Of Police AWPS Udumalpet Police Station Tirupur District.
Crime No.21 of 2021 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the Judgement passed in Spl.S.C.No.105 of 2021 dated 31.05.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court). For Appellant(s):
Mr.K.Prabakar For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Assisted by Ms.T.Harshana
JUDGMENT
The appellant / accused was convicted by the trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.105 of 2021 vide judgment dated 31.05.2022 and sentenced him to undergo five (5) years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default six (6) months Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 9(c) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and the appellant was acquitted for offence under Section 9 (l) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and Section 354(A)(I)(i) of IPC. Aggrieved against
the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. During trial, PW1 to PW7 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 marked. 2.The contention of the appellant is that on 15.10.2021, the dog of the defacto complainant attempted to bite him and a complaint was lodged before the Udumalpet Police Station, in which it is projected as if compromise arrived in CSR No.420 of 2021 on 15.10.2021. To substantiate his case, the appellant marked the complaint in Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The Investigating Officer, though admitted in his cross examination about the earlier incident, but failed to consider the motive of PW1 and PW2 in falsely implicating the appellant in the present case.
3.He further submitted that the POCSO Act has been misused by the complainant and the presumption under Section 29 and 30 had been rebutted and not been considered by the trial Court. The case projected in this case is that the victim PW1, aged about 12 years and the appellant one month preceding to 21.10.2021 misbehaved with her and attempted to undress her and the appellant exhibited his private part. This has been narrated and the complaint lodged. When there was a dispute and in the said complaint it has been stated that one month prior to 21.10.2021, earlier incident had taken place, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the incident which is said to have taken place one month prior 21.10.2021, which is without any details.
4.He further submitted that the appellant and the defacto complainant were residing in the same house, the appellant was residing in the first floor and the defacto complainant was residing in the ground floor, and it is a motivated complaint. The appellant was employed in a State Transport Corporation as driver, due to the conviction suffered in this case, he has lost his employment and his terminal benefits. The counsel submitted he is unable to contact the appellant and hence the appellant's death on 29.01.2026 was not informed to him. He further submitted that for this reason, he could not continue with the appeal by substituting the Legal Heirs. He submitted further that the rights of the Legal representatives cannot be denied. They can continue with the appeal to get the appellant's name erased from the criminal case and to claim the terminal benefits.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant's contention has already been considered during the trial and the trial Court by a well reasoned judgment convicted the appellant. In any event, now the appellant is no more and he passed away in Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on 29.01.2026. His wife's name viz. Rukmani also registered in the death certificate. The death certificate of the appellant produced and the same is scanned hereunder;
6.In view of the above, keeping this appeal pending waiting for the Legal representatives of the appellant to get into the shoes of the appellant, would only add to the pendency of the case before this Court. As on date, no such petition seeking substitution to continue with the appeal is filed. 7.In light of the above, this Criminal Appeal stands closed as nothing survives for further adjudication. Liberty is granted to the legal heirs of the appellant to work out their remedy, if they desire to continue with the appeal at a later point of time, in accordance with law. 23-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kas To.
1.The Inspector Of Police AWPS Udumalpet Police Station Tirupur District 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
kas 23-02-2026