‘Law must possess spine of steel’: Madras High Court confirms death penalty for minors’ rape

“The accused person, who has destroyed the soul and dignity of three children, is not fit to live in society and for the heinous crime committed by him, he has to necessarily lose his life,” the June 30 order said.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice K K Ramakrishan said that the accused did not just break the law, but he extinguished the light of their childhood and left in its place a lifetime of haunting shadows.

Children can’t narrate like adults

State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that the delay in child sexual abuse cases is common, as families often are hesitant to report such offences, and it cannot be used against the prosecution’s case.

The counsel contended that victims were only 6 to 8 years old and it is not within their mental faculty to explain the incident like how adults do; such minor discrepancies in their statements should not undermine their trauma and credibility.

It was argued that there was no reason for the three minors or their mothers to falsely implicate the accused, and under  Section 3 of the POCSO Act, penetrative sexual assault is not limited to penile penetration. It also includes penetration with any object or body part, or oral contact with the child’s private parts. The victims’ accounts clearly brought the case within the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

‘Rarest of rare’

The court observed that the death penalty is an extraordinary measure, reserved exclusively for the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed, and this case stands as the tragic epitome of that exception.

The court said that let this judgment serve as a stark, unyielding warning to any who believe they can manipulate, terrorise, and destroy the youth of our nation with impunity. It noted that a crime so grotesque, so utterly devoid of a shred of human conscience, demands a judicial response that mirrors society’s collective abhorrence.

The court further observed that to spare the life of a perpetrator who showed such cold- blooded, protracted cruelty would be an act of misplaced mercy, rendering the law a silent spectator to the destruction of the innocent. It would send a devastating message to the community: that the soul of a child is cheap, and that a monster may trade the lifelong peace of his victims for the comfort of a prison cell.

The court emphasised that the measure of a society’s civilisation is found in how it protects its most vulnerable, and no one is more vulnerable than a child trusting the sanctity of a home. The accused before us did not merely commit a crime against the physical body; he executed a calculated, systematic campaign of terror that shattered the innocence of three young souls by weaponising fear, wielding threats of death, and forcing these children to witness the violation of one another.

The court added that he did not just break the law, but he extinguished the light of their childhood and left in its place a lifetime of haunting shadows.

By confirming this sentence, the court does not act out of vengeance, but out of a solemn duty to justice, deterrence, and the restoration of the moral order. For actions that have effectively slain the souls of three innocent children, the law can offer no sanctuary. The prisoner has forfeited his right to walk among humanity.

Also written by Avinash Verma (He is an intern with The Indian Express)