The Madras High Court upheld a POCSO conviction after DNA evidence established that the accused had fathered a child with a 13-year-old victim, even though the victim and her parents later turned hostile during trial.
Background of the Case
The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench recently upheld the conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl and fathering her child. The case involved a 13-year-old victim who became pregnant following the alleged assault.
The appeal was filed by Murugan, who challenged a July 2023 judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, which had convicted him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan.
Victim and Parents Turned Hostile During Trial
One of the most significant aspects of the case was that the victim and her parents did not support the prosecution during the trial. The victim even denied giving birth to the child and failed to support the allegations made during the investigation.
However, the High Court noted that the victim acknowledged her signature on the statement recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The Court observed that there was no allegation that the statement had been recorded under threat, coercion, or pressure.
As a result, the Court held that the statement could still be relied upon for corroborative purposes.
DNA Evidence Became the Decisive Factor
The High Court placed substantial reliance on scientific evidence, particularly the DNA report.
According to the forensic findings, the DNA profile conclusively established that Murugan was the biological father of the child born to the minor victim. The Court described the DNA evidence as the most crucial and reliable piece of evidence in the case.
The Bench observed that the forensic report clearly linked the accused to the child and strongly supported the prosecution’s allegations of penetrative sexual assault.
Court Rejects Challenge to DNA Report
The accused argued that the chain of custody of the blood samples had not been properly established and that documents relating to the DNA examination had not been supplied in accordance with legal requirements.
The High Court rejected these objections.
The Bench noted that the blood samples of the accused, the victim, and the child were collected pursuant to judicial orders and forwarded through proper channels to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court further pointed out that the defence had not challenged the collection process during the trial and had also cross-examined the forensic expert.
Finding no evidence of tampering or procedural irregularity, the Court upheld the reliability of the DNA report.
Conviction Modified Under POCSO Act
While affirming the conviction, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault, which was necessary for sustaining the original charge under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act.
Since the victim had turned hostile during the trial, the Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish repeated assaults beyond doubt.
Accordingly, the Bench modified the conviction from Section 5(l) to Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act while maintaining the finding that penetrative sexual assault had occurred.
Sentence Reduced from Life Imprisonment to 20 Years
The High Court reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Instead of life imprisonment, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that this sentence was appropriate after modifying the conviction provision.
Additionally, the conviction under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was set aside because the victim’s testimony no longer supported that allegation.
Key Takeaway from the Judgment
The judgment highlights that scientific evidence, particularly DNA analysis, can independently sustain a conviction in sexual offence cases even when witnesses later retract their statements. The Court emphasized that credible forensic evidence cannot be ignored merely because the victim or family members turn hostile during trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Murugan v. State
Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Judgment Date: June 5, 2026
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates.
Also Read: Ministry of Women and Child Development Internship Programme 2026 [Stipend: 20K per month]
