Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Despite Victim, Parents Turning Hostile; DNA Test Linked Accused to Minor's Child

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) last week upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl and fathering her child, holding that scientific evidence cannot be ignored merely because the victim and her parents later turned hostile in court.

A division bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan relied on DNA evidence to conclude that the accused, Murugan, was the biological father of the child born to the minor victim.

While the court sustained the conviction under Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, it reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment as provided under Section 6 of the Act.

Murugan had challenged the July 31, 2023 judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, which convicted him under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

As per the prosecution case, the accused, aged about 40 years, sexually assaulted the victim girl, who was 13 years old at the time of the incident, in January 2020. The prosecution alleged that the assault was repeated on more than one occasion and that the accused had threatened the victim not to disclose the incidents.

The victim was medically examined during the investigation and was found to be five weeks pregnant.

Before the high court, Murugan contended that the conviction was based solely on the DNA report. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of custody of the samples and that the documents relating to the DNA examination were not furnished to Murugan in accordance with Section 207 CrPC (corresponding to Section 230 of the BNSS). Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v State of Uttarakhand (2025).

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the collection of samples and the DNA examination had never been challenged during trial and that the accused had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the forensic expert.

The bench noted that the victim and her parents had not supported the prosecution case during trial and had turned hostile. The victim even denied the birth of the child. However, court took note of the fact that she admitted her signature in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and did not claim that the statement had been recorded under threat or coercion.

Court held that the Section 164 statement could be used for corroboration.

The high court found that the DNA report constituted the clinching evidence in the case.

Referring to the forensic material placed on record, the bench observed that the DNA report "makes it abundantly clear that the appellant is the father of the child that was born to the victim girl".

Rejecting the challenge to the DNA evidence, court traced the sequence of events leading to the collection of blood samples from the accused, the victim and the child after the child's birth in October 2020.

The bench noted that the samples were collected pursuant to court orders and were transmitted through the court to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai. It further observed that no question had been put to the investigating officer challenging either the collection of samples or the chain of custody.

"There is no material to show that there was any tampering of the blood samples collected," court observed.

The bench also rejected the contention regarding non-supply of documents, noting that the DNA-related documents came into existence only after the filing of the final report and that the defence had cross-examined the forensic expert based on those very documents.

Holding that the trial court was justified in relying upon the DNA report, court said the report, coupled with the victim's Section 164 statement, established the foundational facts necessary to prove penetrative sexual assault.

However, the bench found merit in the contention that the prosecution had failed to establish repeated penetrative sexual assault, which was necessary to sustain the charge under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act. Since the victim had not supported the prosecution case at trial, court held that it was not clear whether the assaults had occurred repeatedly.

Accordingly, the bench altered the conviction from Section 5(l) to Section 5(j)(ii) of the Act, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.

Court also set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC [corresponding to Section 351 (2)/(3) of the BNS], holding that the charge of criminal intimidation could not be sustained after the victim turned hostile.

Partly allowing the appeal, the high court modified the judgment of the trial court and convicted the appellant under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years. 

Case Title: Murugan vs State

Judgment Date: June 5, 2026

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan