The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has confirmed the death sentence awarded to a man convicted in a case involving repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on three minor girls under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Division Bench held that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and found no reason to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the accused, Anandhasekar, was a neighbour of three girls aged between six and eight years. Their parents, who worked as daily wage labourers, would leave for work early in the morning, while the children often played near the house of one victim's grandmother.
The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly took the children inside the house, locked the door and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault over a prolonged period. The incidents came to light after one child's mother overheard a conversation between the children, leading to the registration of an FIR in February 2023.
Following trial, the Special Court for POCSO Cases, Tirunelveli, convicted the accused under multiple provisions of the IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, awarding the death penalty for the POCSO offences. The case reached the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence, while the accused also challenged his conviction through a criminal appeal.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
The High Court extensively examined the testimony of the three child victims and rejected the defence argument that they had been tutored or that their versions contained material contradictions.
The Bench observed that while assessing the evidence of child witnesses, courts must appreciate their statements from the perspective of children rather than applying standards used for adult witnesses.
The judges observed:
“The yardstick that is used while appreciating the evidence of an adult can never be used while appreciating the evidence of a child.”
The Court further held that minor variations in the children's statements did not undermine the consistent account of repeated abuse over a substantial period.
Rejecting the defence contention regarding delay in lodging the complaint, the Bench said families often hesitate to immediately report child sexual abuse because of fear, stigma and concern for the child's trauma.
The Court observed, “The delay in lodging the complaint can never be a defence when it comes to sexual offences and particularly when it pertains to a child.”
The Bench also held that once the prosecution established the foundational facts, the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act came into operation. Since the accused failed to rebut that presumption or establish any motive for false implication, the Court found the prosecution case proved.
Why the Court Upheld the Conviction
The High Court found that the evidence of the three child victims consistently established repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, trespass and kidnapping-related offences.
It also rejected the argument that the absence of injuries or an intact hymen weakened the prosecution case. The Bench explained that the statutory definition of "penetrative sexual assault" under the POCSO Act extends beyond penile penetration and includes other forms of penetration recognised by the legislation.
After examining the evidence and applicable law, the Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the offences under the POCSO Act as well as the IPC provisions invoked in the case.
Decision
Affirming the trial court's findings, the Madras High Court confirmed the conviction and all sentences imposed on the accused, including the death sentence awarded under Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused and answered the death reference by confirming the capital punishment awarded by the Special Court.
It also directed the Registry to redact the identities of the child victims from the trial court records and ensure that the convict receives a copy of the judgment along with legal assistance if he wishes to pursue further remedies.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandhasekar
Case Number: RT (MD) No. 4 of 2026 with Crl. A. (MD) No. 616 of 2026
Judge: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: 30 June 2026
