It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things that the Madurai Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State vs M in R.T.(MD).No.02 of 2026 and Crl.A.(MD).No.425 of 2026 that was pronounced just recently on 07.04.2026 while noting that spending the remainder of his life in prison with constant guilt of his actions would be a bigger punishment than death has ordered him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without release, remission or commutation. Absolutely right. We need to note that the Madurai Division Bench has recently commuted the death penalty of a man who was convicted for sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Before stating anything else, the Division Bench specifies stating explicitly that, “Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 30.12.2025 made in Spl.S.C.No.116 of 2025 dated 30.12.2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), Tirunelveli District and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and allow the above appeal by acquitting the accused.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice KK Ramakrishnan for a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Death sentence awarded to Murugan, Sole Accused in Spl.S.C.No.116 of 2025 dated 30.12.2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), Tirunelveli District dated 30.12.2025, is now before this Court for confirmation under Section 407 of BNSS, in R.T.No.2 of 2026.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The appellant is the sole accused in Special Sessions Case No. 116 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judge, Tirunelveli District Special Court under the POCSO Act. The victim girl, examined as PW1, is the biological daughter of the accused. PW2 is the wife of the accused and the mother of the victim. PW6 and PW7 are the other two children born to the accused and PW2. There are, two female children and one male child for them. After the marriage of PW7, she is living in her matrimonial home. PW2 usually go for agricultural work in the garden of one Muthu, which required her to be away from the house for a considerable period. Taking advantage of the situation and the consequent vulnerability and loneliness of P.W.1 the minor victim, the accused subjected her to repeated penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution case further reveals that the accused continuously exploited the victim over a period of time, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. The pregnancy came to light when PW2 noticed some changes in the physical appearance of the victim. On 05.02.2025, PW2 took the victim to the Primary Health Centre at Panangudi, where, upon preliminary examination, the doctor suspected pregnancy and referred the victim to the Government District Hospital, Tirunelveli for further evaluation. On the same day, the victim was admitted to the said hospital. The attending doctor, after conducting examination, confirmed that the victim was pregnant. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded with the consent of her mother (PW2) and intimation was sent to the jurisdictional police. Based on the intimation sent by the hospital, the jurisdictional police visited the hospital on 05.02.2025, recorded the statement of PW2, and subsequently registered a case in Crime No. 625 of 2025 for offences under sections5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and under section 351(3) the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Following due medical procedures and legal formalities, the victim underwent medical termination of pregnancy, and she remained in the hospital until 13.02.2025, after which she was discharged. Upon registration of the FIR (Exhibit P12), the Investigating Officer (PW16) took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch, examined the victim and other witnesses, and arrested the accused on 06.02.2025 near Muthu garden. The accused was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the investigation was continued by the succeeding Investigating Officer (PW17), who examined additional witnesses, collected material objects, and forwarded the same for forensic analysis. Further, biological samples of the victim and the accused were collected and sent for DNA analysis, through the Forensic Science Laboratory. The DNA report later confirmed the involvement of the accused. Upon completion of investigation, final report was filed before the Special Court, which was taken on file as Special Sessions Case No. 116 of 2025. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under Section230 of BNSS. Charges were framed against the accused, and upon being questioned, he Subsequently, the investigation was continued by the succeeding Investigating Officer (PW17), who examined additional witnesses, collected material objects, and forwarded the same for forensic analysis. Further, biological samples of the victim and the accused were collected and sent for DNA analysis, through the Forensic Science Laboratory. The DNA report later confirmed the involvement of the accused. Upon completion of investigation, final report was filed before the Special Court, which was taken on file as Special Sessions Case No. 116 of 2025. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under Section230 of BNSS. Charges were framed against the accused, and upon being questioned, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 43.2 that, “The trial judiciary, entrusted with this onerous responsibility, stands as the first sentinel of justice, having had the singular advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses, the anguish of the victim, and the conduct of the accused. However, while exercising such grave responsibility, it is imperative that the decision, particularly in the sentencing phase, is not swayed by emotion or sentiment. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge was influenced by emotion , sentiment and the horror of the offence.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to note in para 43.3 that, “The learned trial Judge while imposing the death sentence had failed to consider the above discussed crucial aspects viz: the absence of social reintegration, the erroneous shifting of burden regarding reformation, the lack of adequate legal assistance, and the denial of a meaningful hearing on sentence and also the learned trial Judge was influenced by emotion, sentiment and the horror of the offence and this Court finds it necessary to interfere with the sentence of death imposed by the learned trial Judge as this case does not meet the strict threshold for death penalty and in this case the appropriate sentence is life imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life that ensures an enduring retributive and deterrent effect, consistent with the objectives of punishment under the POCSO Act, rather than imposing the irreversible penalty of death. Accordingly, applying the above framework, this case appropriately falls within Category (B)—warranting imprisonment for life extending to the remainder of the natural life of the appellant.”
Most significantly, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 44 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely while citing recent and relevant Apex Court ruling that, “Above all, in the case of “Bhanei Prasad alias Raju” case 2025 SCC Online SC 1636 involving similar and comparable factual circumstances, including those where grave allegations were made against a close familial figure such as the father of the victim, the Hon’ble Supreme court has affirmed that the sentence of imprisonment for life till the end of the convict’s natural life constitutes an appropriate and proportionate punishment in preference to the death penalty. This Court is duty bound to follow the footsteps of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to commute the death penalty into life imprisonment till the natural death. In view of the above, and bearing in mind that imprisonment for life till the natural life of the convict is a constitutionally and statutorily permissible alternative, this Court is inclined to apply the said settled principles, which was unfortunately overlooked by the learned trial Court, thereby warranting interference with the sentence imposed and therefore, this Court is inclined to answer the reference negatively and death sentence awarded on the accused/Murugan for the charges under Section 5(n), 5(l), (j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 by the judgment dated 30.12.2025 in Sp.S.C.No.116 of 2025 is liable to be commuted to life imprisonment till his natural death.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench in epilogue points out in para 45 that, “To take a life in the name of justice is its gravest function; to spare it, when the law so permits, is its highest wisdom”. Accordingly, this Court ensuring judicial responsibility and fulfillment of justice resonates beyond the confines of punishment in such way the enduring torment of an introversive conscience of the appellant remain bound to his lifelong burden of relentless remorse as a constant reminder of the harm he caused to the innocent child each day stands as a reminder of guilt; each night, a continuation of inner suffering and dying inwardly while alive so as to suffer this punishment more severe than death.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 46 that, “In the result,
(i) The Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.425 of 2026 is partly allowed
(ii) The conviction of the appellant is affirmed
(iii) The sentence of death imposed by the Trial Court is set aside
(iv) In substitution, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
(v) The appellant shall not be entitled to premature release, remission, or commutation.
(vi) The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Judge with default sentence is confirmed.
(viii) Accordingly, R.T.(MD).No.2 of 2026 is answered in the following terms:
(viii) (A) The reference for confirmation of death sentence stands answered in the negative.
(viii) (B) Death sentence awarded on the accused/XXXXX for the charges under Section 5(n), 5(l), (j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 by the judgment dated 30.12.2025 in Sp.S.C.No.116 of 2025 is set aside and commuted to life imprisonment till the natural death.
(viii) (C) Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench directs and holds in para 47 that, “This Court appointed Mr.R.Manickam as a legal-aid-counsel and the said legal aid counsel made detailed submission both on facts as well as law. More particularly, he en-lighted the principles relating to the appreciation of the offence under the POCSO Act, and the principles relating to the awarding of the death penalty in the case of POCSO Act. He also taken painful steps to file the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Hence, this Court fixed his remuneration as Rs.40,000/-. The legal service Authority attached with the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is hereby directed to disburse the said remuneration of Rs.40,000/- within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Finally, the Division Bench the concludes by directing and holding in para 48 that, “Registry is also hereby directed to serve the copies of the judgment to the appellant who is confined in prison, free of costs and the Jail Authorities are also hereby directed to provide adequate legal aid to prefer an appeal against this judgment if he so desires.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Madurai Division Bench of Madras High Court deemed it fit to commute the death sentence of father who was convicted to death by a lower court to life term for the remainder of his life term without release, remission or commutation. The Bench also pointed out that the enduring torment of an introversive conscience of the appellant remain bound to his lifelong burden of relentless remorse as a constant reminder of the harm he caused to the innocent child each day stands as a reminder of guilt; each night, a continuation of inner suffering and dying inwardly while alive so as to suffer this punishment more severe than death. Very rightly so! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
