Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court

Madras High Court Upholds Conviction in Grandfather’s Aggravated Sexual Assault Case

12 October 2024 4:48 PM

By: sayum


The Madras High Court upheld the conviction of Irudhayadasan, a grandfather found guilty of sexually assaulting his 8-year-old granddaughter. The appellant's 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, imposed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Kanniyakumari District, was confirmed. The appellant was convicted under Sections 5(m), 5(n), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

"Victim’s Testimony and Medical Evidence Prove Assault Beyond Doubt," Court Rules

The Court emphasized that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, with the victim's testimony and medical evidence clearly proving the assault. The Court also reaffirmed the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which requires the accused to rebut the charges once foundational facts are established.

The incident occurred on January 2, 2016, when the accused took his granddaughter and her cousins to a beach under the pretext of buying sweets. Leaving the other children behind, the accused sexually assaulted the victim behind a boat. The assault was discovered when the child cried out in pain, attracting nearby individuals who intervened. The victim later informed her family, leading to the registration of a case under the POCSO Act.

The trial court found the accused guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(m) and 5(n) of the POCSO Act, which deals with assaults by relatives and those involving children under the age of 12. He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹50,000.

The appellant contended that there were contradictions in the victim’s statements, medical reports, and witness testimonies. He argued that the prosecution's evidence was inconsistent and that the case only attracted Section 10 (sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act, rather than the more severe Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

However, the Court rejected these arguments, noting that the medical examination confirmed the victim’s hymen was torn, corroborating the penetrative sexual assault. The Court found no material contradictions in the prosecution’s case that would affect the validity of the conviction.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court had correctly applied the law and that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s testimony, supported by medical evidence, was deemed sufficient to uphold the conviction. The 10-year imprisonment sentence for each count was confirmed, with the sentences to run concurrently.

This judgment reinforces the application of the POCSO Act in cases of sexual violence against minors, emphasizing the importance of medical evidence and the presumption of guilt under the law. The Court’s decision upholds the rights of child victims and stresses the responsibility of courts to protect vulnerable individuals from sexual exploitation.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024​.

Irudhayadasan vs. The Inspector of Police

Latest Legal News