Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay 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