Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Pastor For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor

The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a pastor for sexually assaulting a minor who had physical and intellectual disability.

The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima held that the circumstances, the testimony of victim, and failure of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption established his guilt.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a pastor challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Special court.

The prosecution case was that the mother of victim girl had left her under the care of the appellant when she had gone to meet someone. When the mother came back, the appellant ran away panicked and she found her daughter in a pathetic condition. On the next day, upon enquiry, she came to know that the appellant had sexually harassed her daughter.

The prosecution submitted that the girl was 70% disabled and had moderate intellectual disability along with speech impairment. It was argued that the appellant took advantage of the victim's disability and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her.

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant argued that though the offence was allegedly committed at a public place, ie, the church, the prosecution did not examine any independent witness or the wife and inlaws of the appellant.

The appellant also argued that the medical report only talked about the mental disability of the victim and not her physical disability which was fatal to the case. He also argued that the trial court had failed to consider the delay in lodging the complaint and the prosecution had failed to provide any valid reason for the same.

The court, however, rejected this argument. The court noted that the society was yet to overcome the stigma and moral judgement which was attached with such disclosures. The court also highlighted that overcoming the psychological and social barriers to approach the authorities to lodge the complaint would take time and thus, the delay of 8 days was immaterial.

“Regrettably, society has yet to overcome the stigma and moral judgment that continue to attach themselves to such disclosures…To overcome these deep-rooted psychological and social barriers and to ultimately approach the police is neither immediate nor effortless; it is a process that understandably consumes time. Viewed in this backdrop, and recognizing that the reporting of sexual offences is far from a simple or mechanical act, this Court is inclined to hold that the delay of eight days between the date of occurrence and the lodging of the complaint is wholly immaterial,” the court noted.

Though the appellant also argued that the victim's mother had foisted a false case against him, the court was not willing to accept this contention noting that the victim had moderate intellectual disability and could not have been tutored and made to falsely depose against the appellant.

With respect to disability of the victim, the court noted that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act talked about both physical and mental disability and not just physical disability. In the present case, the court was satisfied that the mental disability of the victim was proved beyond doubt.

The court observed that all the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant were minor and did not shake the core of prosecution case. Thus, finding that the conviction did not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity or evidentiary deficiency, the court was not inclined to interfere with it and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. Samidurai

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65

Case No: Crl.A(MD)No.436 of 2023