Child Can’t Consent to Sex — Life Imprisonment Upheld for Sexual Assault on Minor Girl: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a man for sexually assaulting and impregnating his daughter’s minor friend belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The Bench emphasized that a child cannot give consent to a sexual relationship, and clarified that school records take precedence in determining a victim’s age.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan was hearing a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

The court observed:

“This is yet another classic case that reflects the unfortunate position in which vulnerable sections of society, particularly children belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC & ST), are placed.”

Referring to Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, the court reiterated that any person below 18 years of age is a child and the question of consent does not arise in such cases. It further cited Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, stating that the date of birth certificate from school records prevails even over municipal or panchayat-issued birth certificates.

Based on evidence and school records, the court held that the victim was 15 years and 3 months old at the time of the offence. It also noted corroborative testimony from the accused’s daughter, who confirmed witnessing the victim and her father together during Dussehra vacation.

The Bench further observed that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) applied, as the offence was committed against a minor belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, warranting life imprisonment. It also found that Sections 361 and 366 of the IPC concerning kidnapping stood satisfied.

Reiterating the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court said:

“Where a person is prosecuted under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the POCSO Act, the Special Court shall presume that the accused committed the offence unless the contrary is proved.”

The Bench concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court required no interference and directed the appellant to undergo the sentence. It also recorded that the victim was nine months pregnant with her second child when she deposed before the Court.

Appearing Counsel:

• Mr. T. Ravi for Mr. R. Dhineshkumar — for the appellant
• Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Ms. M. Arifa Thasneem — for the State
• Mrs. S. Sridevi, Legal Aid Counsel — for the victim

Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh vs State and Others

Bench: Justice M.S. Ramesh & 
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
Court: Madras High Court

[Read Judgment]