Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Who Sexually Abused, Impregnated Daughter's Friend

The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the case was yet another example of how children from the vulnerable sections of society were placed in unfortunate positions.

“This is yet another classic case that reflects the unfortunate position in which vulnerable sections of the society, in particular, children belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (SC & ST), are placed,” the court said.

The court was dealing with the appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Fastrack Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. The case of the prosecution was that on October 22, 2015, the victim stayed in the house of the accused along with his daughter for the Dussehra holidays. On that day, at 11:00 at night, while the victim was asleep, the accused had sexual intercourse with her, against her wishes. The accused then threatened the victim and continued to have sexual intercourse with her. following this, the victim became pregnant. When the accused got to know about this, he kidnapped the victim from her legal guardian and confined her in Coimbatore.

A complaint was lodged with the All Women Police Station. After trial, the accused was sentenced for offences under Section 366 of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

On appeal, the accused argued that the victim was 18 at the time of the occurrence. He argued that the entire case had been foisted by his wife, who was working in the Police Department. He argued that the victim had not lodged any complaint with the police. He also argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that they were living as man and wife.

Rejecting this contention, the court noted that under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, any person who was aware of the incident could lodge a complaint. With respect to the argument of consent, the court reiterated that a child cannot give consent to another to have a sexual relationship with her/him.

With regard to the allegation that the age of the victim was not proved, the court noted that the age was proved based on school records available with the school. The court remarked that as per Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, the date of birth certificate from the school takes precedence even over the birth certificate.

The court also noted that at the time of offence, the accused knew that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. having knowingly committed the offence on the victim, the court noted that the accused was liable to be punished with imprisonment for life with fine. The court also upheld the conviction of the accused under charges of kidnapping after concluding that he had taken the victim from her lawful guardians.

Thus, the court observed that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court did not require any interference and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. T. Ravi for Mr. R. Dhineshkumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms. M. Arifa Thasneem, Mrs. S. Sridevi Legal Aid Counsel

Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

Case No: Crl.A.No.822 of 2018