The Madras High Court upheld a life sentence for a father who sexually abused his minor daughters, condemning his betrayal of parental duty. The ruling reinforces strict protection for children under the POCSO Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to a father under Sections 4 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, after finding that the evidence presented by minor victims, supported by medical proof, established the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The accused, father of two minor daughters, was convicted by the Mahila Court at Salem for repeatedly sexually assaulting his children. The case came to light when a child welfare official filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 5(1), 6, 7, and 8 of the POCSO Act, and under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following the investigation, the Sessions Court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 4 and seven years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The father filed an appeal, claiming inconsistencies in the victims’ statements, a delay in complaining, and family disputes as reasons for the false implication.
High Court Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman dismissed the appeal, observing that there were no mitigating factors that warranted interference with the trial court’s sentence.
Key points highlighted by the Bench include:
- Credible Testimony of Victims: The statements of the minor daughters were consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence.
- Delay in Cross-Examination: The Bench criticized the undue delay in cross-examining the victims, noting Supreme Court guidance from Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) that cross-examination should ideally be completed on the same day as the examination-in-chief.
- Medical and School Records: The medical examination confirmed sexual assault, and school records verified the victim’s minor status at the time of the crime.
- Parental Responsibility: Citing Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009), the Court emphasized Article 51A(k) of the Constitution, which obligates parents to ensure the moral and educational upbringing of children.
- Impact of Alcoholism: The Bench noted that alcohol addiction contributed to the father’s moral failure, stating that it “can destroy the harmony of a family and erode moral values.”
The Court described the case as particularly tragic, stating:
“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.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Decide: Can Murder Convict Serve Consecutive Life Sentences?
The Madras High Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act, ruling that the punishment was proportionate to the severity of the offence and the moral depravity involved.
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the life imprisonment and reinforcing the judiciary’s strong stance against sexual abuse of children, even when the perpetrator is a parent.
The case highlights:
- The judiciary’s strict enforcement of the POCSO Act against child sexual abuse.
- The importance of medical and testimonial evidence in substantiating cases involving minors.
- The societal expectation that parents act as protectors, with severe consequences when this duty is violated.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate V. Thamizhanban
Respondents: A. Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by M. Aritha Thasneem
Case Title:
Sarvanan Versus State rep by Inspector of Police
Crl.A.No.646 of 2019
READ JUDGMENT
