The Madras High Court has quashed the conviction and capital sentence awarded to a man accused of sexually assaulting five minor girls, ruling that the prosecution’s case rested on inconsistent, rehearsed testimonies and suffered from major legal defects.
A division bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan granted the accused the benefit of the doubt after finding that the evidence supported an alternative, reasonable view of his innocence and failed to conclusively establish guilt.
Inconsistencies and Rehearsed Statements
In setting aside the trial court’s verdict, the High Court observed that the survivors appeared to have been tutored prior to giving statements to investigators and the court. The bench noted that all five children described the alleged abuse, their cries, their initial silence, their attendance at an awareness session, and the intimidation in remarkably similar language.
The judges pointed out that each victim claimed in uniform fashion to be unaware of any assault committed against the others, describing the synchronised narrative as a parrot-like version on crucial matters that raised grave doubts about the prosecution’s claims.
The bench noted that while the law must safeguard children, justice cannot be served by sacrificing one vulnerable person to vindicate another through convictions unsupported by evidence.
Unexplained Delays and Prior Animosity
The High Court highlighted significant vulnerabilities in the timeline and credibility of the complaint. Records showed that the First Information Report was registered five days after the children attended a school awareness session on appropriate and inappropriate touch, with the prosecution offering no explanation for the delay.
The bench also noted that testimonies from two of the girls and the mother of one victim revealed prior hostility toward the accused, a circumstance the court deemed critical in evaluating the truthfulness of the allegations.
According to the prosecution, the offences occurred in 2024 when the accused allegedly enticed the girls, all under the age of 12, to his residence with snacks and mobile phone games before assaulting them on multiple occasions. The prosecution further alleged that the man threatened one of the children to prevent disclosure.
Fatal Procedural Defects in Trial
Beyond the evidential shortcomings, the bench identified a fundamental legal error committed by the trial judge, who had convicted and sentenced the man on April 20 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act alongside criminal intimidation. The High Court found that no formal charge had ever been framed under Section 4, rendering the conviction legally unsustainable and causing substantial prejudice to the accused.
The bench emphasized that procedural requirements in capital cases are substantive constitutional guarantees under Article 21 rather than mere technicalities. It noted that the High Court is obligated to independently confirm the legality of a conviction and determine whether the circumstances satisfy the rarest-of-rare standard before affirming capital punishment.
The judges cautioned against the influence of media-driven narratives and public clamour, observing that heightened public attention requires the judiciary to scrutinize every piece of evidence with extra care to prevent stringent statutory provisions from being weaponised against the innocent.
