Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Rape of SC Girl by Friend’s Father
Court held accused knew victim’s caste and continued abuse despite her age
The Madras High Court affirms life sentence in POCSO-SC/ST Act case involving exploitation of convict's daughter's friend
The Madras High Court recently upheld conviction of a 35-year-old man who raped his daughter’s 16-year-old classmate, a Scheduled Caste girl, and later kidnapped her when she became pregnant.
Court dismissed the convict Murugesan @ Murugesh’s appeal, affirming the life sentence imposed under the SC/ST Act along with rigorous imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act.
The division bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan described the case as a classic example of the exploitation of vulnerable sections, especially children belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
According to the prosecution, the victim and the accused’s daughter were close friends studying together in Denkanikottai. During the Dussehra holidays in October 2015, the girl stayed at the accused’s house, where he assaulted her while she was asleep. He continued the sexual abuse whenever she visited thereafter, leading to her pregnancy. Upon discovering this, he kidnapped her from her parents’ custody and kept her confined in Coimbatore.
Following the victim's complaint to the All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai, in June 2016, the police registered a case and later charged the accused under the IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST Acts. The trial court convicted him in 2018, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 12 years under Section 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and 10 years under Section 366 IPC.
Before the High Court, the convict argued that the relationship was consensual and that the girl was 18 years old at the time. He claimed that his wife, whose brother was a police officer, had fabricated the case. The defence also questioned the authenticity of the age certificate.
Rejecting these contentions, the bench held that the victim’s school certificate, issued by John Britto Higher Secondary School, clearly established her date of birth as July 20, 2000, making her 15 years and 3 months old at the time of the offence. Court observed that the age was proved in accordance with Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which gives precedence to school records over other evidence.
“The question of obtaining consent from a child for sexual relations does not arise,” the court observed, emphasizing that the victim’s pregnancy and the birth of a child proved the occurrence of sexual intercourse. The bench also noted that the accused’s own daughter, who witnessed the victim sharing a bed with him the next morning, corroborated the prosecution’s case.
The bench stressed that corroboration of a victim’s testimony in rape cases is not mandatory. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, the High Court said, “To insist on corroboration in all cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of lust with an accomplice and thereby insult womanhood".
The bench concluded that the accused’s actions clearly attracted the provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, given that he was aware of the victim’s caste.
“For the above reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court against the appellant does not require any interference and accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed,” the court held, directing that he be taken into custody forthwith to serve his sentence.
Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh vs State and Others
Order Date: October 10, 2025
Bench: Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan