Madras HC Upholds Conviction of Policeman for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on Minor

The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that a police officer committing sexual assault on a minor child inherently constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Bench clarified that while the conviction for the aggravated form must be sustained, a separate sentence for the basic offence under Section 4 of the same Act becomes redundant to prevent dual sentencing for the same transaction.

In a significant appellate proceeding, Justice S. Karthikeyan of the Madurai Bench was seized of a criminal appeal filed by a Head Constable challenging his conviction for the sexual assault of a 9th-standard student. The appellant, who was on duty at a police check post at the time of the incident, had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by a Mahila Court in Kanyakumari. The Madras High Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, maintained that the status of the accused as a public servant significantly heightened the gravity of the offence.

Legal Rationale on Aggravated Sexual Assault

The Madras High Court observed that the appellant, being a member of the police force, subjected the victim to penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3(a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The bench noted that such an act by a person in authority falls squarely within the definition of "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" under Section 5(a) of the Act. Consequently, the conviction under Section 6, which prescribes punishment for aggravated assault, was held to be legally sound.

Addressing the medical evidence, the Madras High Court highlighted that while biological samples might not always show the presence of semen due to the nature of the act described by the victim, the physical injuries recorded by the medical officer (PW16) provided sufficient corroboration. The injuries, including contusions on the abdomen and arms, supported the narrative of the assault.

Background of the Dispute

The prosecution case arose from an incident on November 18, 2016, where the appellant, a Head Constable stationed at the Mattapalayam check post, lured a minor boy into a secluded lane and committed sexual assault. The victim reported the matter to his father, leading to the registration of an FIR at the Pazhugal Police Station.

During the trial, the appellant argued that the case was fabricated, suggesting an illicit relationship between himself and the victim's mother as a motive for a false complaint by the father. However, the Madras High Court found no material evidence to support this claim. The Bench also dismissed the defense's contention regarding the "public nature" of the crime scene, noting that the mahazar and rough sketch clearly indicated the spot was a secluded lane behind a bathroom.

Despite the hostility of some witnesses, the Madras High Court relied on the consistent testimony of the victim and the medical officer to conclude that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was thus partly allowed only to the extent of setting aside the redundant sentence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl. A (MD) No. 373 of 2019
Neutral Citation: [Not available in judgment text]
Case Title: Xavier v. The State, represented by The Inspector of Police
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Palanivelayutham, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 22334