'Sparing His Life Would Be Misplaced Mercy': Madras High Court Confirms Death Penalty Of Man For Sexual Assault On Three Minor Girls

Confirming the death sentence imposed by the Tirunelveli POCSO Court, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the crime committed by the man was so heinous and devoid of human conscience that it demanded a judicial response which mirrored society's collective abhorrence. The bench added that sparing the life of such a person would be an act of misplaced mercy.

“A crime so grotesque, so utterly devoid of a shred of human conscience, demands a judicial response that mirrors society's collective abhorrence. To spare the life of a perpetrator who showed such cold blooded, protracted cruelty would be an act of misplaced mercy, rendering the law a silent spectator to the destruction of the innocent. It would send a devastating message to the community: that the soul of a child is cheap, and that a monster may trade the lifelong peace of his victims for the comfort of a prison cell,” the court observed.

The court also observed that the case fell within the exception of rarest of the rare where an alternative punishment could not be given. The court added that the law must possess a spine of steel while dealing with persons who prey on children to satisfy their dark instinct. The court remarked that the judgment should serve as a warning that no one who manipulates, terrorises and destroys the youth was immune from law.

“By confirming this sentence, this Court does not act out of vengeance, but out of a solemn duty to justice, deterrence, and the restoration of the moral order. For actions that have effectively slain the souls of three innocent children, the law can offer no sanctuary. The prisoner has forfeited his right to walk among humanity,” the court added.

The court also observed that the man, who had assaulted the three minor girls for almost a year and terrorised them to not disclose the incident to anyone did not deserve any leniency or a punishment short of the death sentence. The court added that the man, who had destroyed the soul and dignity of three children was not fit to live in the society and had to lose his life.

“The accused person does not deserve any leniency and any punishment less than death sentence will fall short of the societal expectation that the children safety is paramount. The accused person, who has destroyed the soul and dignity of three children, is not fit to live in the society and for the heinous crime committed by him, he has to necessarily lose his life,” the court said.

The court was hearing a referred trial filed by the State to confirm the death penalty ordered by the trial court. The accused had also filed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

As per the prosecution, the parents of the three minor girls were daily wage labourers who used to leave their children in the residential area when they went to work. During weekends, when the children used to play in front of the house of one of the girl's grandmothers, the accused, who lived in the area, used to take the three girls inside the house, lock the door, and commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault on them. The accused later threatened and intimidated the girls not to reveal the incident to anyone. The assault is said to have continued for a period of one year.

While so, on February 26, 2023, one of the girls saw the accused coming out of his house and rushed into her house. When her friend inquired, she informed the friend about the incident, which was overheard by the girl's mother. The mother later informed the other parents and filed the complaint, setting the criminal law in motion.

The accused mainly argued that the evidence of the three girls was unnatural and at every stage there was an improvement in the version, showing that the girls were tutored. It was argued that there was delay in filing the complaint. It was also argued that the alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault was not proved by medical evidence as the evidence of the Doctor showed that the girls did not suffer any internal injuries and their hymen was intact. It was argued that even if the offence was admitted, it would at best only be aggravated sexual assault, attracting maximum punishment of 7 years.

The prosecution opposed the argument and submitted that in cases of sexual assault against children, delay in lodging the complaint is not a determining factor. It was also pointed out that the victims were aged 6, 7, and 8 and it would not be possible for the kids to explain the incident like an adult. Further, the prosecution argued that even if there was minor discrepancies, it would not discredit the statement. It was also submitted that the prosecution had laid down the foundational facts, and it was upon the accused to rebut it as per Section 29 and 30, which was not done in the case.

The court agreed with the prosecution and noted that though there may be variations in the statement of the children, the court had to see whether the substratum of the allegation made by the children regarding sexual abuse/assault undergone by them was consistent in every statement, which was so in the present case.

The court also noted that the accused had not brought in any evidence to suggest that there was a motive behind the statement made by the children. The court also ruled out the defence of delay, noting that in most cases of this nature, the families would be hesitant to lodge the complaint considering the impact from Society.

Though the accused argued that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is not made, the court noted that as per the evidence of the children, the accused used to touch their genitals and place his mouth and genitals over their vagina. Noting that the same would fall within the definition of penetrative sexual assault, the court noted that offence was made out. Since the children were below 12 years of age, the court noted that the offence under Section 5(l) and 5(m) was made out.

The court thus concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the offences under the POCSO Act and the IPC offences. Considering the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances, the court thus opined that death penalty was appropriate punishment in the case and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.G.Karuppasamy pandian Counsel for State

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

Case No: RT (MD)No.4 of 2026