“Not Fit To Live In The Society”: Madras High Court Confirms Death Sentence Of POCSO Convict For Committing Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault On 3 Minor Kids
The Bench said that delay in lodging the complaint can never be a defence when it comes to sexual offences and particularly when it pertains to a child.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench while dismissing a convict's appeal has upheld and formally confirmed his death sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on three minor girls living in the same neighbourhood. The Bench noted that when the direct testimonies of child victims are found inherently reliable and consistent, they stand sufficient for conviction, regardless of standard procedural or medical gaps raised by the defense.
The Court observed that delays in reporting sexual abuse involving children cannot be used by the defense to undermine the prosecution's case. Consequently, traditional procedural metrics regarding reporting delays cannot be applied to shield perpetrators from accountability.
A division bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed, “In the case in hand, not one but three children have been subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly over a period of one year and all these children are in the age group of 6 to 8 years. The modus operandi adopted by the accused person has been discussed in detail. The accused person does not deserve any leniency and any punishment less than death sentence will fall short of the societal expectation that the children safety is paramount. The accused person, who has destroyed the soul and dignity of three children, is not fit to live in the society and for the heinous crime committed by him, he has to necessarily lose his life”.
“By confirming this sentence, this Court does not act out of vengeance, but out of a solemn duty to justice, deterrence, and the restoration of the moral order. For actions that have effectively slain the souls of three innocent children, the law can offer no sanctuary. The prisoner has forfeited his right to walk among humanity”, the Bench said.
John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor appeared for the petitioner-State and Senior Advocate V. Kathirvelu appeared for the respondent.
The facts of the prosecution case reveal that the accused, a neighbor to three minor victim girls aged six, seven, and eight years, took advantage of their parents' absence as daily wage laborers. Over a period of nearly one year, the accused repeatedly enticed the children inside a residential property, locked the doors, and subjected them to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He maintained their silence by brandishing a knife and threatening to murder them and their parents. The horrific series of offenses came to light on February 26, 2023, when the mother of one victim overheard a playful yet revealing conversation between the children, prompting an immediate police complaint.
The Sessions Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District, had convicted the accused on March 9, 2026. Thereafter, the trial court found him guilty under Sections 450, 366, 342, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code alongside Sections 5(1) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, sentencing him to death.
The State sought confirmation of the capital sentence via Referred Trial, while the convict filed Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction.
Evaluating the trial records, the Court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the lack of explicit medical injuries and the intactness of the victims' hymens. The court clarified that medical opinion is merely a relevant fact and does not dictate the outcome of a sexual offense trial, especially since the victims' mothers rightfully withheld consent for invasive vaginal examinations on such young children.
“In a case of sexual assault against children, complaints are not given immediately and many a times the families are hesitant to even give a complaint and therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint can never be a determining factor for an offence under the POCSO Act; The victim girls were hardly 6 to 8 years and it is not within their mental faculty to explain the incident like how an adult explains the same and in the instant case, they have given the explanation by using the words and language to which they have been exposed. If there are any discrepancies, that will not discredit their statements and the Court has to necessarily consider their age and the trauma undergone by the victim girls”, the Bench noted.
Extracting the clear ratio, the court held that the unwavering, corroborated testimony of child victims under Section 164 of the CrPC carries absolute statutory weight, rendering procedural minor infractions completely secondary when the judicial conscience is satisfied.
“A crime so grotesque, so utterly devoid of a shred of human conscience, demands a judicial response that mirrors society’s collective abhorrence. To spare the life of a perpetrator who showed such coldblooded, protracted cruelty would be an act of misplaced mercy, rendering the law a silent spectator to the destruction of the innocent. It would send a devastating message to the community: that the soul of a child is cheap, and that a monster may trade the lifelong peace of his victims for the comfort of a prison cell”, the Bench categorically observed.
“We are acutely aware that the death penalty is an extraordinary measure, reserved exclusively for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed. This case stands as the tragic epitome of that exception. The law must possess a spine of steel when dealing with those who prey on children to satisfy their darkest instincts. Let this judgment serve as a stark, unyielding warning to any who believe they can manipulate, terrorize, and destroy the youth of our nation with impunity”, the Bench noted.
The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the trial court and completely expunge the names and identity markers of the victim girls from all trial records. Furthermore, authorities were directed to serve a copy of the judgment to the appellant at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, and provide necessary legal assistance to prefer any subsequent appeal.
Cause Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandhasekar RT (MD)No.4 of 2026 and Crl.A(MD) No.616 of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioner: John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, G. Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocate.
Respondent: V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel, K. Prabhu, Advocate.