Madras High Court quashes death sentence in POCSO case over ‘parrot-like’ testimonies

“Justice is not achieved by sacrificing one vulnerable person to vindicate another. The law must protect the child without abandoning the accused to a conviction unsupported by proof,” it said.

Pointing out that the evidence of two of the survivors and the mother of one survivor discloses the existence of prior animosity against the accused, the court stated that this circumstance assumes significance while assessing the credibility of the prosecution case.

The court also cast doubt on the delay in registering the FIR, noting that the complaint was lodged only five days after the school conducted a “good touch–bad touch” awareness programme, with no explanation for the delay.

Five children allegedly sexually assaulted

The case arose from a prosecution against a man who was accused of sexually assaulting five minor girls in 2024. According to the prosecution, the children, all under 12, would visit the accused’s house to play games on his mobile phone. The accused allegedly lured them with games and snacks and subjected them to sexual assault on multiple occasions.

Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K K Ramakrishnan said that intense public scrutiny places extra duty of care upon bench to ensure every shred of evidence is exhaustively analyzed, leaving no stone unturned.

The prosecution alleged that the accused also threatened one of the victims with dire consequences if she disclosed the assaults. The case was registered after the children attended a school awareness programme on “good touch and bad touch”, following which they disclosed the alleged incidents to their families.

The trial court convicted the accused of offences under the POCSO Act and criminal intimidation and, in its April 20 judgment, awarded him the death penalty. The accused then challenged his conviction in the high court.

Survivors gave strikingly similar accounts: Order

The court found no credible, cogent and corroborative evidence conclusively establishing the accused’s involvement. It held that the evidence also supported another reasonably possible view favouring the accused, requiring grant of benefit of doubt.

The court noted that all five survivors narrated the alleged assault, their cries, reasons for not disclosing it earlier, the “good touch and bad touch” programme and alleged intimidation in strikingly similar language.

The court held that the trial judge committed a serious legal error by convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act even though no charge under that provision had been framed. The court said this made the conviction legally unsustainable and caused serious prejudice to the accused.

It said that before confirming a death sentence, it must first independently examine whether the conviction itself is legally sustainable and whether the case meets the “rarest of rare” threshold for capital punishment.

“In a case carrying the ultimate penalty, procedural safeguards cannot be treated as technicalities. They constitute substantive guarantees intended to ensure that no person is deprived of life except through a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the ruling observed.

The bench underscored that this case stands as a classic textbook illustration of how draconian statutory provisions can be weaponised, holding an innocent person beneath the suspended sword of a death sentence. “In an era where trial by media often pronounces guilt long before the judicial process concludes, high-profile cases generate intense public expectation,” it added.

Holding that the courts cannot and must not be guided by popular clamor or media narratives, it said that intense public scrutiny places an extra duty of care upon the bench to ensure every shred of evidence is exhaustively analyzed, leaving no stone unturned.