"Protector Became The Source Of Suffering": Madras High Court Upholds Father's Conviction For Sexually Harassing His Minor Daughters

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman commented that it was a peculiar case and it was painful to see that the father, who was expected to be the protector, had in turn become the cause of suffering for the kids.

Noting that the father was a drunkard and the heinous acts were done in an inebriated state, the court added that the case was an example of how alcohol addiction destroys the harmony of a family and erodes moral values. The court added that the evils of alcohol not only affect the individual's health but also destroy the peace and sanctity of a family.

“Instant case is indeed a peculiar case where it is painful to note that the father, who is expected to be the protector and guardian of his children, has turned out to be the very source of their suffering. The present case also portrays a distressing picture of how addiction to alcohol can destroy the harmony of a family and erode moral values. The accused, instead of nurturing and protecting his daughters, allowed his inebriated state to overpower his human instincts and parental duty. The evils of alcoholism not only ruin an individual's health and character but also devastate the peace and sanctity of an entire family,” the court said.

The court added that Indian culture placed the father in a revered position, even above god, as was expressed in the saying Matha, Pitha, Guru, Deivam. The court added that the father's duty was to ensure the safety, emotional well-being and moral upbringing of the child, and when this sacred responsibility was let down, it strikes at the very foundation of family and society.

The court was hearing the appeal filed by the father against his conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Salem. The father was convicted under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and to undergo 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 10 of the Act.

As per the prosecution, the man had married a woman and had two female children from the marriage, after which he left her. Later, he married another woman and had four children (three girls and a boy) from the marriage. It was submitted that since the man used to come home drunk every night and beat his wife and kids, his second wife left the home with 2 kids and left the victim children with him, aged 16 years and 13 years.

The prosecution argued that while so, the man sexually harassed his 16-year-old daughter by forcing sexual penetration on her. The man also sexually harassed his 13-year-old daughter by forcefully inserting his finger into her private parts, among other acts.

The victim daughters ended up in the Salem Children Welfare Organisation through their siblings, where they informed the working member about the sexual acts done on them. The working member then gave a complaint to the All Woman Police Station, Salem, and a case was registered. After trial, the man was found guilty and convicted.

On appeal, the man argued that though as per the prosecution the victim girls were examined as early as on May 4, 2016, the complaint was lodged only on February 8, 2017, after a delay of 10 months. He also argued that a false case was registered against him since the daughter used to roam around with a boy, and he objected to the same. The man also argued that if such an incident had taken place, the victim girls would have spoken about it to their neighbors, which was not considered by the trial court.

The Additional Public Prosecutor objected to the appeal and argued that the guilt of the accused was corroborated by the evidence of the girls, who deposed about the sexual acts done on them, and the evidence of the Doctor who examined the girls and opined that they were subjected to sexual harassment.

The court observed that the prosecution had proved its case through oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, though the man chose to examine his second wife as witness, she had admitted that due to the offence committed by the man, the daughter had conceived and a male child was born, who died within 7 months.

Thus, the court found no mitigating factors to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. The court thus upheld the punishment imposed on the man, noting that it was commensurate with the gravity of offence and moral depravity.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. V. Thamizhanban

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by M/s. M. Aritha Thasneem

Case Title: S v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

Case NO: Crl.A.No.646 of 2019