Madurai Bench Confirms Death Sentence for Man Who Repeatedly Assaulted Three Girls Aged 6–8 Under POCSO Act
The Madurai Bench upheld the death penalty awarded to Anandhasekar for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on three children aged six to eight, committed every Saturday over nearly one year, holding the case falls within the “rarest of rare” category.
A Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, on 30 June 2026 confirmed the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli, on Anandhasekar, the sole accused in Spl. SC No.97 of 2023. The trial court had convicted him on 9 March 2026 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with offences under Sections 450, 366, 342, and 506(II) of the IPC. The matter came before the High Court both as a referred trial under Section 407 of the BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 366 of the Cr.P.C.) and as a criminal appeal filed by the accused under Section 415(2) of the BNSS. The bench independently re-examined the entire evidence and confirmed both the conviction and the capital sentence, dismissing the accused's appeal.
The Offences and How They Came to Light
The three victim girls — referred to in the judgment as x, y, and z — were aged six, eight, and seven years respectively at the time of the offences. Their parents were daily wage labourers who left home early in the morning and returned late in the evening. On Saturdays, the children played near the house of PW6, the grandmother of x.
Anandhasekar was a neighbour. The children addressed him as “mama” and “chithappa” — terms of familial address. According to the prosecution, he used this proximity to take all three children inside PW6's house, lock the door, and commit penetrative sexual assault on them. He threatened them with a knife, placing it at their necks, and warned them not to tell their parents. These acts are alleged to have continued every Saturday for nearly one year.
The matter came to light on 26 February 2023, a Sunday. PW4, the mother of x, was folding clothes at home when x ran inside on seeing the accused emerge from his house. Another child, Preeth, asked x why she ran, and y responded that the accused would ask them to remove their undergarments. PW4 overheard this, questioned the children, and the full extent of the abuse was disclosed. PW4 then informed the mother of z, and a complaint was lodged. The FIR in Crime No.7 of 2023 was registered the same day by the Special Sub Inspector of Police, AWPS Palayamkottai, for offences under Sections 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 342 and 506(II) IPC.
The accused was arrested on 27 February 2023. The three children were produced before Tirunelveli Government Medical College and Hospital for medical examination. The doctor, PW18, found no external injuries and intact hymens in all three girls. In the case of z, redness was noted in the labia majora, urethra, and fourchette. Vaginal examination was not conducted in any case as the mothers did not give consent. Statements of the children were recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The final report was filed before the Special Court on 9 May 2023.
Charges Framed and Sentence Imposed by the Trial Court
The trial court framed charges under Section 450 IPC, Section 366 IPC (three counts), Section 342 IPC (three counts), Section 506(II) IPC (three counts), and Section 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act (three counts). The accused denied all charges and examined no witnesses.
The trial court convicted him on all counts. For the POCSO charges, it imposed the death penalty, with a fine of Rs.10,000 for each count, directing that the three death sentences merge for the purpose of execution. For Section 450 IPC, it imposed ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000. For each count of Section 366 IPC, ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000. For each count of Sections 342 and 506(II) IPC, one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000.
Arguments Before the High Court
Senior counsel for the accused raised several contentions. He argued that the statements of the victim girls were unnatural, improved at every stage, and bore signs of tutoring. He pointed to the delay of nearly one year between the alleged commencement of the offences and the complaint. He submitted that the medical evidence — intact hymens and no internal injuries — did not corroborate the charge of penetrative sexual assault. He also argued that the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements reached the court only at the time of filing the final report, with no explanation for the delay. On sentence, he contended that the trial court had relied on the probation officer's report without showing it to the accused and without proper questioning under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. He further argued that at best, the evidence made out aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(l) and 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which carries a maximum of seven years.
The State Public Prosecutor countered that delay in lodging complaints is common in sexual offence cases, particularly involving children, given family hesitation and social stigma. The prosecutor submitted that the children's accounts, given in their own words and language, were consistent in substance. Medical corroboration is not mandatory where the victim's statement is reliable. The foundational facts having been proved, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were triggered, and the accused had failed to rebut them. On sentence, the prosecutor argued that the trial court had identified nine aggravating circumstances and that the death penalty was justified given the gravity of the offence.
How the Bench Reasoned on Conviction
The bench examined the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with care. It reproduced the children's own Tamil words describing the assault rather than translating them, explaining that the language employed by children of six to eight years must be understood from their perspective, not that of an adult. The bench observed that a court dealing with child sexual abuse must show sensitivity to what the child is attempting to express, while remaining alert to whether the child has been tutored. It held that the words used, the language employed, and the manner of explanation reveal the genuineness of a child's statement.
On the tutoring argument, the bench found the children's accounts consistent in substance across their Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. statements and court depositions. It accepted that some variation between statements is natural for children recounting repeated trauma over time, and that the court must separate the core allegation from peripheral embellishments. The core — that the accused took them inside PW6's house every Saturday, locked the door, and committed sexual assault — was consistent throughout.
On delay, the bench held that in sexual offence cases involving children, families are often hesitant to approach the police due to social impact and the trauma of court proceedings. Delay cannot be a defence unless the accused establishes that the delay itself reflects a motive to falsely implicate him. The accused made no such showing.
On medical evidence, the bench held that the doctor's opinion is a relevant fact but not a mandatory requirement for conviction. The definition of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is exhaustive. Sub-clause (a) covers penile penetration; sub-clause (b) covers insertion of any object or body part other than the penis; sub-clause (c) covers manipulation of any body part to cause penetration; and sub-clause (d) covers application of the mouth to the child's genitals. The bench found that the descriptions given by PW1 to PW3 satisfied sub-clauses (a), (b), and (d). The intact hymen did not negate penetrative sexual assault as defined under the Act, particularly given that the children's genitals are not fully developed and penetration as understood for adults cannot be mechanically applied.
The bench also confirmed the IPC charges. On Section 450 IPC, PW6 confirmed the house was hers, and the evidence showed the accused made PW1 fetch the key, opened the house, and committed the offences inside — satisfying the ingredients of Section 442 IPC, with the trespass accompanied by an offence punishable with life imprisonment. On Section 366 IPC, the accused removed the children from where they were playing to PW6's house for the purpose of committing penetrative sexual assault. On Section 342 IPC, the children were confined inside the locked house. On Section 506(II) IPC, the accused threatened the children with a knife placed at their necks.
Having found the foundational facts proved, the bench held that the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act were triggered. The accused did not rebut them by establishing any ill-will or motive for a false complaint.
The Sentencing Question: Death or Life Till Natural Death
The bench drew on its earlier judgment in State v. Murugan, RT(MD) No.2 of 2026, reported in 2026 (2) MLJ Crl. 556, which had laid down a framework for sentencing under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. That framework identified three categories: cases warranting the statutory minimum of twenty years; cases justifying life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life; and the exceptional class warranting death.
The bench articulated a distinction between death and life imprisonment till natural death. It described life imprisonment till natural death as a “living punishment” — a continuing process of accountability that forces the offender to confront his crime daily. It observed that where the offence falls under Section 5(l) alone (repeated penetrative sexual assault), the Supreme Court has in numerous cases, including Bhanei Prasad alias Raju reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1636, awarded life imprisonment till natural death rather than death. For Section 5(m) (penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years), the bench noted that children under twelve are at a critical stage of development, their bodies not equipped to endure penetrative acts and their minds lacking cognitive maturity to process such trauma. The bench held that where the victim has not attained puberty, the offence has been committed repeatedly, and there are injuries, the punishment is death.
The bench then applied this framework to the facts. Three children, all below twelve years, were subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly every Saturday for nearly one year. The accused exploited their trust, used a knife to threaten them, committed the assault on each child in the presence of the other two, and was identified by the probation officer's report as a habitual criminal with multiple pending cases. The bench found that all nine aggravating circumstances identified by the trial court were established. The mitigating factors — the accused's age of 38 years, his status as a daily wage worker and sole breadwinner, and the possibility of reformation — did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances.
The bench held that any punishment less than death would fall short of the societal expectation that children's safety is paramount. It confirmed that the case falls within the “rarest of rare” category.
Order
The Division Bench confirmed the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli, in Spl. SC No.97 of 2023 dated 9 March 2026. RT(MD) No.4 of 2026 was answered by confirming the death sentence for the charge under Section 5(l) and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The conviction and sentence for all other charges were also confirmed. Crl.A(MD) No.616 of 2026, the appeal filed by the accused, was dismissed.
The bench directed the Registry to communicate the order forthwith to the trial court. It directed that the names of the victim girls be redacted from all trial court records, including the trial court judgment. A copy of the judgment is to be served free of cost on the accused at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The jail authorities were directed to provide necessary legal assistance to the accused to prefer an appeal against the judgment if he so desires.