Madras High Court Affirms Life Sentence Under POCSO Act For Pastor Convicted Of Aggravated Sexual Assault On Disabled Minor

The Court held that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the statutory presumption under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act remained unrebutted.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO cases, which had convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

A Division Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima observed: “The cumulative effect of the circumstances of the admissible public documents establishing the victim's age, the unshaken testimony of the victim, medical findings that the hymen of the victim is not intact, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, and failure of the appellant to rebut the presumption, incontrovertibly establishes the guilt of the appellant”.

Background

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 3 May 2022 at about 9:00 p.m. when the minor victim and her mother visited a church run by the appellant. The mother briefly left the girl under the appellant’s care and went out to meet a person who had called her regarding repayment of money. When she returned, the appellant allegedly ran away on seeing her, and the girl was found in a distressed condition with her shirt unbuttoned and pants rolled up.

On inquiry the following day, the victim disclosed that the pastor had subjected her to sexual assault. The prosecution's case further stated that the girl was approximately 17 years old and suffered from moderate intellectual disability and speech impairment, and that the accused exploited her vulnerability.

The complaint was lodged on 11 May 2022 and, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. During the trial, nine prosecution witnesses and fifteen documents were examined, while the defence examined two witnesses. The Special Court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 5(f) and 5(k) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, sentencing him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposing a fine.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined the question of alleged prior enmity between the victim’s family and the accused. On analysing evidence, it was found that despite a prior disagreement, both families continued interacting, and the victim and her mother frequently visited and even stayed overnight at the church. This conduct, the Court held, undermined the defence theory of false implication arising out of hostility.

The Bench then considered the age of the victim and held that it stood conclusively proved through documentary evidence establishing that she was a minor on the date of the occurrence. The Court also examined the statutory ingredients of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(f) and 5(k) of the POCSO Act and the offence under Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act relating to exploitation of a person with disability.

On appreciation of the testimony of the victim and her mother, the Court found that their statements were consistent and mutually corroborative. It rejected the defence suggestion that the girl had been tutored, observing that, given her moderate intellectual disability, it was not plausible that she could be coached to falsely implicate the accused.

The medical evidence showed no injuries on the breasts and no evidence of recent intercourse, but confirmed that the hymen was not intact. The Court held that the absence of injuries did not discredit the prosecution's case, relying on Supreme Court precedent that a lack of physical injuries does not negate sexual assault, particularly where a delay in medical examination is explained.

Addressing the delay in lodging the complaint, the Bench observed that reporting sexual offences is often delayed due to social stigma and psychological barriers. In the factual context, an eight-day delay was held not to be fatal.

The Court also rejected the defence contention that failure to examine certain witnesses weakened the prosecution. It held that the prosecution is not bound to examine witnesses who are likely to be hostile or interested in favour of the accused, and the defence was free to summon them if it considered their testimony material.

On the question of whether the aggravated provision under Section 5(f) applied, the Court found sufficient evidence that the church was under the management of the accused’s family. With respect to Section 5(k), it held that the victim’s mental disability was proved through medical evidence showing an IQ of 36, which fell far below normal levels.

The Bench further applied the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, holding that once foundational facts were proved, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption. As no credible rebuttal was produced, the presumption operated against him.

Conclusion

The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent testimony of the victim and her mother, corroborative circumstances, medical evidence, and the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act.

The Court found no infirmity in the findings of the trial court and concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed were legally sustainable and proportionate to the nature of the offence. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Cause Title: Joseph Raja v. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam

Appearances

Appellant: K. Samidurai, Advocate.

Respondent: R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Click here to read/download Judgment