The Madras High Court has acquitted a man previously sentenced to death for the alleged sexual assault of five children, ruling that the prosecution’s case lacked foundational evidence and that the trial proceedings suffered from catastrophic procedural violations.
A division bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan overturned the capital conviction after undertaking an intensive review of the trial record, examining the oral and documentary evidence on more than 20 occasions across two months. The bench concluded that the trial court’s verdict represented a severe miscarriage of justice, observing that draconian legal provisions had been weaponised against an innocent person facing the death penalty.
The court underscored that achieving justice does not permit sacrificing one vulnerable individual to vindicate another, stressing that while the law must safeguard children, it cannot subject an accused person to a conviction unsupported by proof.
Procedural Violations and Trial Deficiencies
The allegations surfaced after the five children attended an awareness session at their school on distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate physical contact, after which they reported the alleged abuse to relatives. While the state argued during the appellate hearings that the extreme penalty of death was warranted given the heinous nature of the accusations, defence counsel maintained that the state had failed to prove the basic facts of the alleged offences.
In its assessment, the high court determined that the trial judge failed to adhere strictly to mandatory guidelines and safeguards established by the Supreme Court of India for capital cases. The bench observed that the accused was denied opportunities to consult legal counsel and lacked representation at critical junctures of the proceedings, effectively reducing constitutional guarantees of a fair trial to a mockery.
Evidentiary Gaps and Tutored Testimonies
Beyond systemic procedural failures, the division bench identified critical flaws in the prosecution’s evidentiary record. Depositions by the survivors exhibited notable embellishments, material contradictions, signs of prior tutoring, and inherent improbabilities.
The bench observed that each survivor offered virtually identical, unaltered narratives regarding the alleged acts of penetrative assault, the subsequent silence, their understanding of physical boundaries, and the threats allegedly made against them. The court found that the identity of the accused was never properly established during the survivors’ testimonies.
Furthermore, the judges highlighted an unexplained delay in filing the initial police complaint, substantial discrepancies concerning the alleged dates of the incidents, and a complete absence of corroborating medical evidence, all of which cast serious doubt on the state’s narrative.
Financial Motives and Decision on Compensation
The high court also accepted the defence’s contention that the case was driven by ulterior motives, specifically noting allegations that the parents had initiated the complaint to secure substantial monetary compensation.
While the bench noted that filing false allegations typically justifies legal measures against the parents—including recovering any compensation disbursed—it chose not to order recovery in this instance. The court reasoned that the children themselves had already suffered at the hands of their parents, who had set the criminal proceedings in motion.
