Madras High Court Commutes Death Penalty For Father Convicted Of Daughter's Rape, Says He Should Spend Each Day With Reminder Of Guilt

Noting that spending the remainder of his life in prison with constant guilt of his actions would be a bigger punishment than death, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan ordered him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without release, remission or commutation.

“Accordingly, this Court ensuring judicial responsibility and fulfilment of justice resonates beyond the confines of punishment in such way the enduring torment of an introversive conscience of the appellant remain bound to his lifelong burden of relentless remorse as a constant reminder of the harm he caused to the innocent child each day stands as a reminder of guilt; each night, a continuation of inner suffering and dying inwardly while alive so as to suffer this punishment more severe than death,” the court said.

As per the prosecution's case, the father had committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on his minor, when his wife had gone for agricultural work. The victim became pregnant, which came to light when the mother had taken the victim to a Primary Health Centre upon noticing some changes in her physical appearance. At the hospital, the victim's statement was recorded with her mother's consent, and an intimation was sent to the jurisdictional police. The police visited the hospital and a case was subsequently registered for offences under Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(j)(ii) read with Section 46 of the POCSO Act and under Section 351(3) of the BNS.

The pregnancy was terminated and a DNA test was conducted with the sample from the foetus, confirming the involvement of victim's father.

After trial, considering the consistent testimony of the victim and the corroborative evidence of the mother and elder sister of the victim, and the medical and scientific evidence, the trial judge imposed a capital punishment on the father.

When the referred trial came up before the high court, the state submitted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent evidence of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. The state also argued that the nature of the offence, a father committing repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his own daughter resulting in pregnancy was an extremely grave and heinous crime warranting highest punishment of death.

The accused, on the other hand, argued that a false case had been instituted against him since he had questioned the victim regarding her conduct. It was also argued that there was an unexplained delay in registration of FIR and the prosecution had failed to specify the precise dates of the alleged occurrences of sexual assault.

The court, on perusing the materials before it was convinced that the ae of the daughter (13 years at the time of occurrence) was clearly proved through evidence. The court also noted that the victim's evidence regarding the occurrence was cogent, credible and inspired confidence. The court also took note of the DNA result. Considering all the factors, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused father.

With respect to the sentence, though the court noted that the crime, by its very nature had shocked the conscience of the court, it also observed that the exercise of sentencing does not end with the gravity of the offence.

The court noted that the man, who was currently in jail, stood alone due to social and familial abandonment. The court noted that the man's family had openly sought the severest punishment against him and no one from the family or village had contacted him.

The court noted that the man was living a life of exile, which was not a mere incidental hardship but a continuing and severe form of punishment.

“He exists in a condition of stark isolation—cut off from family, village, and society at large. This condition, akin to a living exile, is not a mere incidental hardship but a continuing and severe form of punishment. It reflects a state where the appellant, though alive, is socially extinguished,” the court said.

However, the court noted that the trial judge, at the time of sentencing, had not given an opportunity to the accused to put forward the mitigating circumstances and was influenced by emotion, sentiment and the horror of the offence.

Thus, considering the circumstances, the court thought it fit to commute the death sentence of the man to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, leaving him to live daily with the guilt of his actions.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Arun Pandi Ms.P.Jeba Malar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.R.Manickam

Case Title: State v M

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 181

Case No: R.T.(MD).No.02 of 2026