2026 Supreme(Mad) 1589

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
The State of Tamilnadu, rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli - Appellant
Versus
Murugan - Respondent
R.T.(MD).No.02 of 2026 and Crl.A.(MD).No.425 of 2026
Decided On : 07-04-2026

In POCSO aggravated assault by father causing pregnancy, upheld conviction on victim's evidence and DNA; commuted death to life till natural life as not 'rarest of rare', emphasizing graded sentencing and prosecution's burden to prove irreformability.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 351(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 407, 415 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault by father on minor daughter (aged 14 years) repeatedly resulting in pregnancy - Trial court convicted accused and awarded death sentence - High Court in confirmation proceedings and appeal, after independent re-appreciation of evidence, upheld conviction finding victim's testimony cogent, corroborated by medical and DNA evidence establishing paternity - On sentencing, applied 'rarest of rare' doctrine, balancing aggravating (familial betrayal, repetition, intimidation, pregnancy, abortion trauma) and mitigating circumstances (economic hardship, no prior antecedents, social isolation, age around 50, good jail conduct) - Held that case falls in Category

(B) under graded sentencing framework; death penalty not warranted as life imprisonment till natural life ensures enduring retributive effect without irreversibility - Death sentence commuted to imprisonment for remainder of natural life without remission. (Paras 15, 42-44)

(B) Death Sentence Confirmation - BNSS Section 407 - High Court's duty - Must independently scrutinize evidence on facts and law to confirm conviction beyond reasonable doubt and assess if case falls in 'rarest of rare' category - Life imprisonment is rule, death penalty exception; burden on prosecution to prove convict beyond reformation - Trial court erred in shifting burden to accused, denying meaningful sentencing hearing, and being swayed by emotion. (Paras 7-10, 43)

(C) POCSO Act Sentencing Framework - Section 6 - Graded structure: (A) minimum 20 years RI;

(B) life imprisonment till natural life;

(C) death in rarest cases - For familial assault under Section 5(n) with repetition under 5(l) and pregnancy under 5(j)(ii), ordinarily life till natural life; death reserved for extreme brutality like custody abuse, gang assault, weapons, death of victim, recidivism. (Paras 18-37)

Facts of the case:
Accused, father of victim (minor daughter aged 14), subjected her to repeated penetrative sexual assaults during mother's absence for work, intimidating her to silence, resulting in 18-22 week pregnancy discovered in February 2025 - Victim underwent medical termination; DNA confirmed accused as biological father of foetus - Trial court convicted under specified sections and awarded death sentence, referred for confirmation alongside accused's appeal.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through victim's consistent testimony, medical evidence of pregnancy/abortion, and conclusive DNA match - Aggravating circumstances outweighed but mitigated by accused's profile and lack of proof of irreformability - Life imprisonment till natural life adequate and proportionate.

Issues: (1) Whether prosecution established aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond doubt? (2) Does case warrant death penalty under 'rarest of rare' or falls in graded sentencing category? (3) Validity of trial court's sentencing process?

Ratio Decidendi: In familial child sexual assault cases with repetition and pregnancy, conviction sustainable on victim's trustworthy testimony corroborated by science; death penalty impermissible absent proof of un-reformability and extreme aggravating factors - Life till natural life balances retribution, deterrence, and constitutionality as 'living punishment'.

Result: Reference answered negatively; appeal partly allowed - Conviction upheld, death sentence set aside and commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life without remission/commutation.

Table of Content
1. factual background and prosecution evidence (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

COMMON JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Death sentence awarded to Murugan, Sole Accused in Spl.S.C.No.116 of 2025 dated 30.12.2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), Tirunelveli District dated 30.12.2025, is now before this Court for confirmation under Section 407 of BNSS , in R.T.No.2 of 2026.

2.Murugan has also filed appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.425 of 2026, challenging the conviction and death penalty awarded against him in the above impugned judgment, whereby, he was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(n), and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The sentence imposed is as follows:

3. The said appeal has been tagged along with Referred Trial (MD).No.2 of 2026 for confirmation of the death sentence.

4. Facts of the case:

The appellant is the sole accused in Special Sessions Case No. 116 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judge, Tirunelveli District Special Court under the POCSO Act. The victim girl, examined as PW1, is the biological daughter of the accused. PW2 is the wife of the accused and the mother of the victim. PW6 and PW7 are the other two children born to the accused and PW2. There are, two female children and one male child for them. After the marriage of PW7, she is living in her materimonial home. PW2 usually go for agricultural work in the garden of one Muthu, which required her to be away from the house for a considerable period. Taking advantage of the situation and the consequent vulnerability and loneliness of P.W.1 the minor victim, the accused subjected her to repeated penetrative sexual assault The prosecution case further reveals that the accused continuously exploited the victim over a period of time, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. The pregnancy came to light when PW2 noticed some changes in the physical appearance of the victim. On 05.02.2025, PW2 took the victim to the Primary Health Centre at Panangudi, where, upon preliminary examination, the doctor suspected pregnancy and referred the victim to the Government District Hospital, Tirunelveli for further evaluation. On the same day, the victim was admitted to the said hospital. The attending doctor, after conducting examination, confirmed that the victim was pregnant. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded with the consent of her mother (PW2) and intimation was sent to the jurisdictional police. Based on the intimation sent by the hospital, the jurisdictional police visited the hospital on 05.02.2025, recorded the statement of PW2, and subsequently registered a case inCrime No. 625 of 2025 for offences under sections5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and under section 351(3) the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Following due medical procedures and legal formalities, the victim underwent medical termination of pregnancy, and she remained in the hospital until 13.02.2025, after which she was discharged. Upon registration of the FIR (Exhibit P12), the Investigating Officer (PW16) took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch, examined the victim and other witnesses, and arrested the accused on 06.02.2025 near Muthu garden. The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the investigation was continued by the succeeding Investigating Officer (PW17), who examined additional witnesses, collected material objects, and forwarded the same for forensic analysis. Further, biological samples of the victim and the accused were collected and sent for DNA analysis, through the Forensic Science Laboratory. The DNA report later confirmed the involvement of the accused. Upon completion of investigation, final report was filed before the Special Court, which was taken on file as Special Sessions Case No. 116 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document