MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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