Madras High Court
Pandy vs The State on 9 January, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 11.11.2025
Pronounced on 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
Pandy : Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State, through
The Inspector of Police,
Vilathikulam Allwomen Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(In Crime No.01/2019) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:-This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment
in S.C.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thoothukudi, dated 06.11.2019
and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr. R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
JUDGMENT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J., This criminal appeal is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the special court for trial of cases under the protection of children from sexual offences act, Thoothukudi district in Spl.Sessions Case No.45 of 2019, dated 06.11.2019. By the above judgement, the learned Trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced him as detailed below:
Sections Punishment Fine Default
Section 5(n) Life Rs.1000/- 6 months rigorous
(k)of POCSO Act Imprisonment imprisonment
Section 366-A of 10 Years rigorous Rs.1000/- 6 months simple
I.P.C imprisonment imprisonment
Section 506(ii) 7 Years rigorous Rs.1000/- 6 months Simple
of I.P.C imprisonment imprisonment
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in appeal are addressed according to the ranks in the learned Trial Court.
3. Three charges were framed as against the accused and the charges framed as against the accused by the learned Trial Court on 26.07.2019 are briefly as follows:
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 3.1. The aggrieved victim child of age 13 years is residing with her mother at Muthalipatti, Perilovanpatti post, Thoothukudi district. The accused is the second degree uncle of the aggrieved victim child. The aggrieved child/victim is a mentally retarded, differently abled person. On 24.01.2019 evening at about 6 p.m, while the victim went to answer her nature’s call, amongst Prasopis Julieflora (Velikaruvai) shrubs, the accused had forcibly procured the minor victim with a sexual intention and had committed an offence under Section 366-A of IPC.
3.2. Knowing that the victim is a minor girl of age 13 and is a mentally retarded, differently abled child, the accused had procured her into the agricultural land of one Mr.Vignesh, and had embraced her and had kissed her, compelling her to lie down and removed her sudidhar pant and panties against her will and had committed sexual assault on the child, thereby committing offences under section 5(n)(k) r/w 6 of POCSO Act ,2012.
3.3.On the said day, in the said time, as explained supra and in the said place, while the accused was indulging in forcibly conducting himself to sexually assault the victim child on the child's agitation, and when the child screamed out of pain, the accused had criminally intimidated her that he will kill her if she created noise, thereby 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 committing an offence under section 506 (ii) of IPC.
4. The learned Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi, on the strength of the oral and documentary evidences before it had found that the accused is guilty of having committed the offences and thereby convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the commission of offences under Section 5(n)(k) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act ,2012, and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the commission of offence under Section 366 - A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a final of Rs.
1000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and that the sentences shall run concurrently through its judgement in special calendar case No. 45 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019. The said judgement of the learned Trial Court is assailed in the present appeal.
5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows::
5.1. The accused is a Cooly Labour and the victim child “V” are 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 residents of Muthalipatti, Perilovanpatti village , Ettaiyapuram. The victim child “V” was aged 13 years at the time of offence and she had been residing with her mother. The accused aged 60/2019 is the second degree maternal uncle of the victim child, “V”. The mother of the victim child had lodged a complaint on 25.01.2019 at about 14.00 hours at All Women Police Station, Vilathikulam. This grave complaint was directed by P.W.1, who is the mother of the victim child before the Vilathikulam All Women Police Station (Ex.P1), as against the accused .
5.2. In furtherance to the same, First Information Report in Cr.No.1 of. 2019 was registered on 25.01.2019 ( Ex.P12 -FIR) against the accused for offences under Section 363, 506(ii) of IPC and under Section 5(i)(n)(k) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012, which is punishable 6 of the POCSO ACT,2012. The Sub-Inspector of police investigated the incident, upon the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant and the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vilathikulam, has laid final report, on completion of investigation, before the learned Trial Court which took cognizance for offences punishable u/s 363, 506(ii) of IPC and offence u/s 5(i)(n)(k) and punishable under Section 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 as against the accused.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 5.3.In the charge sheet, the Inspector of Police alleged that the investigation revealed that the accused had procured the victim child when the above child proceeded for answering her nature’s call on 24.01.2019 at about 06.00 p.m. amongst Prasopis Julie flora (Velikaruvai) shrubs, and the accused grabbed the victim child entered into the punja agricultural land belonging to one Mr. Vignesh of the said village and the accused embraced her, kissed on her mouth and lifted her underwear, sudidhar pant and panties , inserted his male penis/sexual organ into her female vagina/sexual organ. When she screamed out of pain, the accused also threatened her not to scream and that if she disclose the matter to others, he would kill her and thus he had committed sexual intercourse forcibly with sexual intent, touched her body and had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child “V” who is aged about 13 years . Further the accused has repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on “V” -the victim child in the riverside on the same day all through the night by threatening her. The offence committed is defined under Section 5(n) (k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the accused rendered himself liable to be punished u/s 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also punishable under Section 366-A, 506(ii) of I.P.C. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
6.Proceedings before the learned Trial Court:
6.1. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution as PW1 to PW 16 and 18 documents were marked as Exhibit P-1 to P -18 .Neither witnesses were examined nor documents were marked on the defence side demolish the case of the the prosecution.
6.2. To elaborate, the following witnesses were examined:
The mother of the victim child, namely, Velthai, that is the de facto complainant was examined as PW-1, the victim child herself was examined as PW-2, as mentioned as “V” all along the judgement by the learned Trial Court, three ocular witnesses Sivaperumal, Kalirajan and Pandiarajan were examined as PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5 respectively. The mahazar witness one Mariapapan was examined as PW-6., one Grade- 1 woman Police Constable, namely, Elizabeth Jansi Rani, who brought the victim to medical examination, was examined as PW-7. The escort police, Tmt.Annapoornam - Grade-II woman Police constable, who brought the accused for medical examination, was examined as PW-8, one Vijayaveeran, the headmaster of the school where the victim child is pursuing her studies, had given an official birth certificate to confirm the age of the victim child, and he was examined as PW - 9, the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim girl, namely, 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 Dr.Tmt.Saranya was examined as PW -10. The official who had given the birth certificate of the victim, namely, Thiru. Karunaneethi, Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office, was examined as PW -11. The police official, who is a woman head constable of the Vilathikulam police station, namely, Tmt.Nagajothi, who registered the complaint of PW1 was examined as PW-12. The doctor who conducted medical examination on the accused, namely, Dr.Mathanpandian was examined as PW-13. The official who gave disabled person certificate to the victim child, namely, Tmt.Jeyaseeli, District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi, was examined as PW-14. The investigation officer, one Tmt.Subbulakshmi, Retd. Sub-Inspector of Police, AWPS-Vilathikulam was examined as PW-15 and the police official who further investigated and filed a final report, namely, Tmt.Ramalakshmi, Inspector of Police, AWPS-Vilathikulam was examined as PW -16.
6.3. The victim girl who was examined as PW-2 was aged 13 years at the time of the offence, and she was pursuing her 7th standard in T.V.A.Nallalagu Nadar Higher Secondary School, Perilovanpatti, and her date of birth is 12.06.2005 (Ex-P-9 & Ex-P-11). Exhibit P-9 is a school certificate dated 20.02.2019 issued by the Head Master of T.V.A Nallalagu Nadar Higher Secondary School, Perilovanpatti, who deposed his evidence as PW-9. To prove that the victim-“V” is a minor child, further exhibit 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 P-11, that is a birth certificate of the victim girl was marked through PW
-11, Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar Office .
6.4. That apart, to substantiate that the victim child is a differently abled mentally retarded child, the prosecution proceeded to mark her disability certificate dated 06.02.2019 as Ex-P.14 through Tmt.Jeyaseeli, District Differently Abled Welfare Officer, Thoothukudi , who was examined as PW -14, for the purpose of establishing that the victim child is a differently abled, mentally retarded child with 60% disability.
6.5. The complaint given by the mother of the victim who was examined as PW-1 was marked as Ex- P-1. At the time of investigation her statement was obtained under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, on 13.02.2019 and the same was reduced in writing and the same is marked as Ex-P2. Like wise, the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, on 13.02.2019 has been marked as Ex-P-3. The victim has also deposed her evidence as PW-2, who clearly narrated the nature of penetrative sexual assault suffered by her in the hands of the accused, on that fateful evening on 24.01.2019.
6.6. PW-3 Sivaperumal is one of the ocular witness who had 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 seen the victim with the accused on 25.01.2019 morning at a bus stand at Keelakaranthai near Shenkkottai after an elaborate search for the missing victim since 24th January,2019, on the information of PW-1 mother along with Pandiaraj (PW-5) and Kaliraj (PW-4) and had informed the same to her mother and had also rescued the victim from the accused and had made arrangements to send the victim to her mother in an auto. This was clearly deposed by all the three ocular witnesses, though with slight variations, which will not be fatal to the prosecution case.
6.7. The victim ‘V’ examined as P.W.2, aged 13 years as substantiated by Ex.P9 and Ex.P11, and mentally disabled corroborated by Ex.P14, stated that on 24.01.2019 at 6.00 p.m., when she went to answer nature’s call, the accused wrongfully restrained her, took her into Vignesh’s punja land, forcibly subjected her to sexual assault, and threatened her with death if she disclosed the incident. She further stated that later that night, near the riverside, he again assaulted her. The next morning, she was reunited with her mother and narrated the incident. Her 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, statement (Ex.P3) was recorded. She underwent medical examination on 26.01.2019 at Government Medical College Hospital, where smear samples were collected for forensic examination.
6.8.The mother of the victim/de facto complainant examined as 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 P.W.1 deposed that, she returned home at 9.00 p.m. on the day of the incident and found her daughter missing. On 25.01.2019, P.W.3 informed her that the victim was seen with the accused. Upon enquiry, the child narrated the assault. Ex.P1 complaint was lodged, and Ex.P12 FIR registered. Her 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, statement was recorded as Ex.P2. P.W. 3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 corroborated the rescue of the child from the accused.
P.W.6 attested Ex.P4 and Ex.P15.
6.9. The Medical officers who examined the victim deposed evidence as PW10 and PW13. P.W.10 examined the victim and Ex.P10-the Medico-Legal Report was marked through her. She confirmed that samples sent for forensic analysis resulted in Ex.P17, which showed no spermatozoa and explained the same as not unusual in minors or delayed examinations. Further P.W.13 deposed that he examined the accused and issued Ex.P13, certifying that the accused was not impotent and was physically capable of sexual activity.
6.10.The investigating officers deposed their evidence as PW12, PW15, P.W.16, thereby establishing the registration of FIR, collection of materials, recording of statements, arrest of the accused, and filing of charge sheet. Thus Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 were marked, including complaint, FIR, 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 statements, medical and forensic reports, disability 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 certificate, age records, and mahazar documents.
6.11. On the basis of the evidence deposed, documents marked and after hearing arguments on either sides the learned Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to punishment as elaborated in paragraphs 1 and 4 supra.
7. Grounds of Criminal Appeal:
7.1.Challenging the aforesaid impugned judgment, this Criminal Appeal is filed on the following grounds:
The appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that, according to P.W.1, she had initially preferred a complaint at the Ettayapuram Police Station at about 09.00 a.m., where the police officials wrote down her complaint and both the victim girl and the appellant were present within a short span; however, the prosecution suppressed this earliest complaint and failed to place it before the learned Trial Court, thereby creating a serious doubt as to the very genesis of the prosecution case. The appellant further contends that the testimony of P.W.2 stands contradicted by the medical evidence of P.W.10, the contents of Ex.P10, the evidence of P.W.3, and the medical findings contained in Ex.P13, and that reliance on the solitary testimony of P.W.2 to sustain the conviction is unsafe and unsustainable. It is urged that the medico-legal 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 report Ex.P10 does not support the case of the prosecution, since P.W.10 found no external injuries, no foreign hair on the genital region, an intact hymen, and smear samples showing no spermatozoa, and P.W.10 clearly deposed that there were no signs suggestive of sexual assault, which indicates the innocence of the appellant and highlights material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and other prosecution witnesses. The appellant also points out that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of P.Ws.5 to 11 under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, belatedly and forwarded them to the learned Judicial Magistrate without any explanation for the delay, thereby casting further doubt on the prosecution version. It is further urged that the prosecution witnesses are neither trustworthy nor cogent and their evidence is not supported by medical findings, and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant are liable to be set aside. The appellant further submits that the de facto complainant has given different times of occurrence before the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court, and the prosecution has failed to establish the place and time of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. It is therefore contended that the impugned judgment is against law and the weight of evidence, and the appellant, who is innocent and has been falsely implicated, is entitled to an acquittal. The appellant reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing.
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 7.2. Points for determination:
In the light of the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a “child” below thirteen years of age at the time of the occurrence?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has established that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child, attracting Sections 363, 506(ii) of IPC and offence u/s 5 (n)(k) of the POCSO Act, 2012?
(iii) Whether the alleged contradictions, omissions and investigative lapses are of such a nature as to create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?
(iv) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court warrant interference by this Court?
7.3.Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.
14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
8.ANALYSIS:
8.1. On a thorough re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that the testimony of the victim child (P.W.2) is cogent, consistent, and trustworthy. Her deposition in Court fully accords with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 (Ex.P3). The essential facts narrated by the child remain uniform throughout, and there is no material contradiction that would render her testimony unreliable. As repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar1, Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh3, the testimony of a child victim of sexual assault, if reliable, does not require corroboration. The Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar4 held that the evidence of a child victim of sexual assault must be evaluated with utmost sensitivity and that a conviction may be founded solely on her testimony if it is found credible. Similarly, in Rai Sandeep v. State of Haryana5, the Court introduced the concept of the "sterling witness", whose testimony is so unblemished and consistent that it inspires absolute confidence. PW2 fits squarely within this category. The defence argument that disability affects credibility is erroneous. Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act recognises that mentally disabled children are 1 (2017) 2 SCC 51 2 (2012) 8 SCC 21 3 (1996) 2 SCC 384 4 Supra 1 5 (2012) 8 SCC 21 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 more vulnerable to sexual assault. Far from weakening the case, the victim’s disability strengthens the prosecution narrative that she could not have fabricated a detailed and consistent account across multiple stages of the judicial process.
8.2. Upon a careful and meticulous re-appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that the testimony of the victim girl (PW2) remains unimpeached on all material particulars. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973, (Ex.P3) is wholly consistent with her deposition in Court. No material discrepancy has been elicited in cross-examination. The child’s narration is spontaneous, natural and devoid of exaggeration. Courts have repeatedly held that a child of tender age is unlikely to fabricate a story of sexual assault, particularly where the offender is a close relative.
8.3. The medical evidence furnished by P.W.10 and the Forensic Report Ex.P17 do not contradict the version of the prosecution. Absence of spermatozoa or signs of injury is neither unusual nor fatal in cases involving child victims. It is our considered opinion that hymenal rupture is not essential to prove penetration. P.W.10’s testimony that non-
detection of spermatozoa may occur due to lapse of time or child physiology reinforces that medical evidence is neutral, not exculpatory. Thus, the ocular evidence of the child, supported by surrounding 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 circumstances, prevails.
8.4. We are of the considered view that, Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 conclusively establish that the victim was 13 years old and Ex.P14 certifies 60% mental retardation. Thus, the victim is a “child” and also a “child with disability” under the POCSO Act. Needless to state that, Section 5(k) applies when the victim is mentally or physically disabled and that Section 5(n) applies when the offender is a person who is a relative or in a position of trust. Thus the accused, being the maternal uncle, clearly fits the statutory category under Section 5(n), there by both aggravated circumstances stand proved.
8.5. The scheme of the special act makes it explicit that, once the prosecution establishes:(i)the age of the child, (ii) the disability of the child, (iii)the relationship between the accused and the child, and (iv) the fact of the child being taken away and subjected to assault, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is mandatory. Here, the accused has not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption. A mere denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973, is legally insufficient. Interestingly while the learned Trial Court questioned the accused under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., 1973, about any mitigating circumstance with respect to the 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 sentence to be imposed, the accused while stating that a false case has been foisted against him also mumbled that intoxicated by alcohol he took the girl and has intercourse and that he is separated from his wife, that he has a 19 year old son and that ignorantly he had committed wrong and sought for pardon and release. Therefore, the presumption stands unrebutted and strengthens the prosecution case.
8.6. That apart the act of taking the minor child away from her locality with intent to exploit her certainly attracts Section 366-A IPC. Further the act of issuing threats to kill the child if she disclosed the assault attracts Section 506(ii) IPC. Thus, we are of the considered view that the findings of the learned Trial Court on these charges are correct and require no interference.
8.7. The definition of “penetrative sexual assault” under Section 3 of the POCSO Act includes even minimal penetration. In the instant case, child clearly stated that penetration occurred and her testimony is unaffected by cross-examination. In addition to that, medical and forensic reports do not disprove penetration. Thus, we affirm that, the offence under Section 5(k) and Section 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 8.8. The principles laid down in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra6, Gurmit Singh, State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar7 and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash8 highlight that: (i)sexual offences against minors violate Article 21, (ii)they traumatize the child physically and psychologically, (iii)they involve abuse of trust when committed by relatives, (iv)Courts must impose stringent punishment to deter similar crimes.
8.9. We summarise that in the instant case :(i) the child is mentally disabled, (ii) the accused is a close relative, (iii) the acts occurred repeatedly, (iv) threats were issued to silence the victim, and (v) the child was extremely vulnerable. All these factors certainly justify maximum severity of punishment. Sentencing is not a mechanical exercise. The sentence imposed is proportionate, lawful and necessary for the protection of children.
8.10.Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which may extend to life. Given the aggravating factors of the instant case, the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the learned Trial Court is not excessive, but appropriate and 6 1996 SCC (1) 490 7 (2017) 2 SCC 51 8 2002 (5) SCC 745 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 proportionate. We affirm that no mitigating circumstance has been shown to warrant reduction. Hence, this Court is satisfied that: (i) the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) the learned Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence is correct; and that (iii) the conviction under Sections 366-A and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 5(k) & 5(n) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act is fully supported by evidence. The offence proved falls under both Section 5(n) and Section 5(k) of the POCSO Act. Section 5(n) applies because the accused is the maternal uncle of the victim, a fact that places him in a position of natural trust. Section 5(k) applies because the victim suffers from sixty per cent mental retardation. The offence therefore constitutes an aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6, which prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, extending to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra9 emphasised that rape is not merely a physical assault but a crime against basic human dignity and violation of the victim's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The gravity of the offence increases manifold when committed against a minor child, particularly one with mental disability, and by a close relative. Such conduct reveals moral perversion and complete disregard for the sanctity of familial bonds. 9 1996 SCC (1) 490 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 8.11.We candidly hold that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise. The Court must consider the nature of the crime, the character of the offender and the impact on the victim. The present case represents a profound breach of trust where a helpless child was subjected to sexual violence by her own maternal uncle. The victim’s mental disability intensifies the trauma. Courts have consistently held that sexual offences against children warrant stern punishment to deter similar offenders and reaffirm society’s commitment to protect children. The trial Court’s imposition of life imprisonment is justified. No mitigating factor has been demonstrated. The age of the accused cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance where the offence reveals moral depravity. Hence we conclude that the sentence imposed is proportionate, lawful and necessary for the protection of children.
9. In fine, we find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction under Sections 366- A and 506(ii) IPC and Section 5(n)(k) read with 6 of the POCSO Act is upheld. The sentence of life imprisonment and the concurrent sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court do not warrant interference. 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019 is confirmed.
(P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,) 09.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml To:
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Allwomen Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer Criminal Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm ) Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.
Sml Crl.A(MD)No.595 of 2022 09.01.2026 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 03:20:31 pm )