Latest JudgementIndian Penal Code, 1860

Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others, 2025

The judgment reinforces the protective intent of the POCSO Act, which categorically denies the validity of consent from minors in sexual offences.

Madras High Court·17 October 2025

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Court

Madras High Court

Date of Decision

17 October 2025

Judges

Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The accused, Murugesan, was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri for sexually assaulting and impregnating his daughter’s minor friend, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
The incident occurred on October 22, 2015, when the victim stayed at the accused’s house during the Dussehra holidays.
That night, at around 11:00 PM, the accused had non-consensual sexual intercourse with the victim while she was asleep. He later continued the assault, threatening her repeatedly.
The victim became pregnant. On learning this, the accused kidnapped and confined her in Coimbatore, away from her legal guardian.
A complaint was lodged at the All Women Police Station, leading to his prosecution and conviction for offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act.

Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the offence?
Whether the alleged sexual intercourse was consensual?
Whether the complaint was validly lodged, considering the victim herself did not directly file it?
Whether the offence attracted the aggravated provision under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act?
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court required interference?

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri were confirmed.
The Court held that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence.
The Consent is immaterial under POCSO.
The School records are conclusive proof of age.
The accused, aware of the victim’s caste status, committed an aggravated offence attracting the SC/ST Act.
No procedural or evidentiary error warranted interference with the trial court’s judgment.

The judgment reinforces the protective intent of the POCSO Act, which categorically denies the validity of consent from minors in sexual offences.
The Court’s reliance on school records as primary proof of age reflects judicial adherence to Section 94(2)(i) JJ Act, providing clarity in age-determination disputes.
By affirming conviction under the SC/ST Act, the Court recognized the intersectionality of caste-based vulnerability and sexual exploitation, emphasizing protection for marginalized children.
The Bench’s observation — “This is yet another classic case that reflects the unfortunate position in which vulnerable sections of the society, in particular, children belonging to SC & ST, are placed” — underlines the social justice dimension of criminal law enforcement.
The decision also clarifies that any person aware of the offence may file a report under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, thereby expanding access to justice and encouraging community responsibility in protecting children.
The Court rejected the defense narrative of consensual relationship or false implication, highlighting that such arguments are irrelevant and insensitive in cases involving minors.