In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - even though the victim and her family refused to support the prosecution during trial. The court found that DNA evidence was strong enough to sustain the conviction, while modifying the original sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to January 2020. The appellant, Murugan, then around 40 years old, was accused of calling the victim - a 13-year-old girl - to a neighbour's house in Bodinayakkanur, Theni district, and committing penetrative sexual assault on her. He was also alleged to have threatened her into silence, and reportedly repeated the threats a month later in February 2020.
The victim's mother filed a complaint, and an FIR was registered under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(1) of the IPC (criminal intimidation). The accused was arrested the same day as the scene inspection and remanded to judicial custody.
A school certificate confirmed the victim's date of birth as May 29, 2006 - establishing she was 13 years old at the time of the alleged assault. Medical examination revealed she was pregnant.
The Complication: Victim and Family Turn Hostile
When the trial began before the Fast Track Mahila Court in Theni, something that often derails such cases happened - the victim (examined as PW3) and her parents all turned hostile. They refused to support the prosecution's version in court. The victim even denied that a child had been born.
This left the prosecution largely dependent on the DNA evidence - and that is where the case took a decisive turn.
The victim's child was born on October 24, 2020, after the final police report had already been filed. The Child Welfare Committee then stepped in and wrote to the investigation officer in December 2020, requesting DNA testing. Blood samples were collected from the accused, the victim, and the child in February 2021, and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Madurai. The DNA report, prepared in August 2021, confirmed that Murugan was the biological father of the child.
The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to life imprisonment under POCSO and one month's simple imprisonment for criminal intimidation, with sentences to run concurrently.
Arguments Before the High Court
Murugan's counsel challenged the conviction on several grounds - primarily that neither the victim nor her family supported the prosecution, and that the trial court had relied solely on the DNA report. He also argued there was no proper chain of custody for the samples, that DNA documents were marked through the investigating officer rather than the forensic expert, and that copies of the DNA-related documents were not given to the accused as required under Section 207 of the CrPC.
The State countered that the investigation officer had fully explained the sample collection process during examination, and that no questions had been put to him in cross-examination on this point. The State also pointed out that the accused had clearly received the DNA documents - because he had cross-examined the FSL Deputy Director (PW13) on their contents.
Court's Observations
The bench examined the timeline carefully. Since the child was born after the final report was filed, the DNA test could not have been part of the original investigation. The court noted that the blood samples were collected by a government medical officer, sent to the FSL within six days, and handled entirely through official court channels - leaving little room for any claim of tampering.
On the question of documents not being furnished, the bench was pointed:
"The fact that the copy of the relevant documents was furnished to the accused person is evident from the fact that the accused person had put questions to PW13, who is the Deputy Director of FSL, Madurai, based on those documents."
The court also rejected the defence's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, finding the facts too different. That case involved hair samples found on a murdered child, serious procedural lapses in sample sealing, and a hasty trial - none of which applied here.
On the victim's hostile testimony, the bench observed that since she had not denied giving the Section 164 CrPC statement before the Magistrate and accepted her signature on it, that statement could still be used for corroboration.
The Court's Decision
While upholding the conviction, the bench made two important modifications.
First, it altered the specific POCSO provision. The original charge was under Section 5(l) - which applies when penetrative sexual assault is committed more than once or repeatedly. Since the victim turned hostile and the repetition could not be conclusively established, the court found it appropriate to alter the conviction to Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, which covers penetrative sexual assault by a person in a position of trust or authority. The sentence under Section 6 of the Act remains the same either way.
Second, on sentencing, the bench modified the life imprisonment term to rigorous imprisonment for a period of not less than 20 years - noting the fact that the victim and her parents had chosen to remain hostile.
The conviction under Section 506 of the IPC (criminal intimidation) was set aside entirely, since PW3 had turned hostile and the charge could not be sustained without her testimony.
The criminal appeal was thus partly allowed, with the conviction and sentence modified in the terms above.
Case Details:
Case Title: Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number: Crl. A(MD) No. 1034 of 2023
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Decision Date: June 5, 2026
