Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

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