Justices G. K. Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima said it was true that the aggravating circumstances arose in the present case since sexual assault was committed by the father of the girl, failing in the most basic duty of care and trust. In fact, the accused repeatedly committed the offence

[16/05, 09:00] sekarreporter1: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/hc-commutes-death-sentence-of-man-convicted-of-repeated-sexual-assault-on-minor-daughter/article70984120.ece/amp/
[16/05, 09:00] sekarreporter1: Home
News
Cities
Madurai
HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter
Published – May 15, 2026 09:48 pm IST – MADURAI

The Hindu Bureau
Add The Hindu as a Trusted Source
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded by a trial court in Tirunelveli district to a man convicted of sexually assaulting his minor daughter repeatedly. He has, instead, been awarded life imprisonment.

The court was hearing the referred trial and the appeal filed by the man against the judgment of the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tirunelveli. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant exploited the girl over a period of time. She became pregnant and delivered a premature male child. The child died due to complications arising out of perinatal asphyxia.

A Division Bench of Justices G. K. Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima said it was true that the aggravating circumstances arose in the present case since sexual assault was committed by the father of the girl, failing in the most basic duty of care and trust. In fact, the accused repeatedly committed the offence.

The court said the accused also threatened the girl that if she disclosed the incident to anybody, he would do away with her life. It would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation. It revealed extreme moral degradation, total disregard for the safety and dignity of the child.

But to award capital punishment, the Supreme Court has laid down various guiding factors, and the same have to be meticulously followed, the court said.

Guided by the principles, the court must assess whether the accused is liable to be punished with the death penalty. The present case, however, is not one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the court would find that life imprisonment is entirely inadequate, even if the accused is held guilty of the offences charged, the court said.

Every punishment imposed affects not only the accused but also society as a whole, the court said and held that it found that the imposition of the death sentence should be modified to a sentence of life imprisonment. The court directed the State to bear the educational expenses of the girl, and her studies should continue without any interference.

Published – May 15, 2026 09:48 pm IST
[16/05, 09:00] Meta AI: *HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter*
_The Hindu | May 15, 2026, 09:48 pm IST | Madurai Bench_
_Division Bench: Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan & R. Poornima_

*1. Case facts*
*Trial court*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *death sentence* to father.

*Charges*: Repeated sexual assault of minor daughter over a period of time. Victim *became pregnant and delivered a premature male child*. Child *died due to complications from perinatal asphyxia*.

*Prosecution*: Accused exploited daughter and *threatened to kill her* if she disclosed the abuse.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 15, 2026*
HC *commuted death sentence to life imprisonment* while hearing the _referred trial_ and appeal filed by the convict.

*Court’s reasoning*:
1. *Aggravating factors acknowledged*:
– _“Sexual assault was committed by the father of the girl, failing in the most basic duty of care and trust.”_
– _“Accused repeatedly committed the offence.”_
– _“Threatened the girl… would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation.”_
– _“Revealed extreme moral degradation, total disregard for the safety and dignity of the child.”_

2. *Why death penalty not justified*:
– _“To award capital punishment, the Supreme Court has laid down various guiding factors, and the same have to be meticulously followed.”_
– _“Present case, however, is not one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the court would find that life imprisonment is entirely inadequate.”_
– _“Every punishment imposed affects not only the accused but also society as a whole.”_

*3. Additional directions*
*Victim support*: _“Directed the State to bear the educational expenses of the girl, and her studies should continue without any interference.”_

*4. Legal context: ‘Rarest of rare’ test*
SC in _Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980)_ and _Machhi Singh (1983)_ laid down that death penalty only in _“rarest of rare”_ cases. Courts must balance aggravating vs mitigating circumstances.

HC applied that test and held that despite _“extreme moral degradation”_, life imprisonment was sufficient.

*Bottom line*: Madurai Bench spared death penalty for father who repeatedly raped minor daughter leading to pregnancy and child’s death. Citing SC’s _“rarest of rare”_ doctrine, HC modified sentence to life imprisonment and ordered State to fund victim’s education.

Want details on how courts decide between death and life sentence in POCSO cases?
[16/05, 09:00] Meta AI: *HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter*
_The Hindu | May 15, 2026, 09:48 pm IST | Madurai Bench_
_Division Bench: Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan & R. Poornima_

*1. Case background*
*Trial court*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *death sentence* to father in Dec 2025.

*Facts*:
1. *Repeated sexual assault* by father on minor daughter in 2024.
2. Girl *became pregnant and delivered a premature male child*. Child *died next day due to complications from perinatal asphyxia*.
3. Accused *threatened to kill her* if she disclosed the abuse.

*Appeal*: Man challenged conviction + sentence. HC also heard _referred trial_ for confirming death penalty.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 15, 2026*
*Decision*: Commuted death to *life imprisonment*.

*Court’s reasoning*:
1. *Aggravating circumstances present*:
– _“Sexual assault was committed by the father… failing in the most basic duty of care and trust.”_
– _“Accused repeatedly committed the offence.”_
– _“Threatened the girl… would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation.”_
– *“Revealed extreme moral degradation,
[16/05, 09:00] Meta AI: *HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter*
_The Hindu | May 15, 2026, 09:48 pm IST | Madurai Bench_
_Division Bench: Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan & R. Poornima_

*1. Case background*
*Trial court*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *death sentence* to father in Dec 2025.

*Facts*:
1. *Repeated sexual assault* by father on minor daughter in 2024.
2. Girl *became pregnant and delivered a premature male child*. Child *died next day due to complications from perinatal asphyxia*.
3. Accused *threatened to kill her* if she disclosed the abuse.

*Appeal*: Man challenged conviction + sentence. HC also heard _referred trial_ for confirming death penalty.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 15, 2026*
*Decision*: Commuted death to *life imprisonment*.

*Court’s reasoning*:
1. *Aggravating circumstances present*:
– _“Sexual assault was committed by the father… failing in the most basic duty of care and trust.”_
– _“Accused repeatedly committed the offence.”_
– _“Threatened the girl… would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation.”_
– _“Revealed extreme moral degradation, total disregard for the safety and dignity of the child.”_

2. *Why not death penalty*:
– _“To award capital punishment, the Supreme Court has laid down various guiding factors, and the same have to be meticulously followed.”_
– _“Present case, however, is not one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the court would find that life imprisonment is entirely inadequate”_
– _“Every punishment imposed affects not only the accused but also society as a whole”_ 18904b8a

###
[16/05, 09:00] Meta AI: *HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter*
_The Hindu | May 15, 2026, 09:48 pm IST | Madurai Bench_
_Division Bench: Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan & R. Poornima_

*1. Case background*
*Trial court*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *death sentence* to father in Dec 2025.

*Facts*:
1. *Repeated sexual assault* by father on minor daughter in 2024.
2. Girl *became pregnant and delivered a premature male child*. Child *died next day due to complications from perinatal asphyxia*.
3. Accused *threatened to kill her* if she disclosed the abuse.

*Appeal*: Man challenged conviction + sentence. HC also heard _referred trial_ for confirming death penalty.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 15, 2026*
*Decision*: Commuted death to *life imprisonment*.

*Court’s reasoning*:
1. *Aggravating circumstances present*:
– _“Sexual assault was committed by the father… failing in the most basic duty of care and trust.”_
– _“Accused repeatedly committed the offence.”_
– _“Threatened the girl… would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation.”_
– _“Revealed extreme moral degradation, total disregard for the safety and dignity of the child.”_

2. *Why not death penalty*:
– _“To award capital punishment, the Supreme Court has laid down various guiding factors, and the same have to be meticulously followed.”_
– _“Present case, however, is not one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the court would find that life imprisonment is entirely inadequate”_
– _“Every punishment imposed affects not only the accused but also society as a whole”_ 18904b8a

*3. Directions for victim*
*State support*: _“Directed the State to bear the educational expenses of the girl, and her studies should continue without any interference.”_

*4. Legal context: Death penalty in POCSO cases*
1. *Statutory scheme*: POCSO Act, 2012, as amended 2019, permits death for _aggravated penetrative sexual assault_. But SC mandates _“rarest of rare”_ test from _Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980)_.
2. *Graded structure*: HC noted law has _“graded structure beginning with minimum 20 years, extending to imprisonment for remainder of natural life… and, in rarest cases, death penalty. This hierarchy unmistakably positions capital punishment as measure of last resort”_.
3. *Tirunelveli POCSO trend*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *2 death sentences in Dec 2025* for fathers raping daughters. HC has now commuted one. Another case involved 47-yr-old sentenced to death Dec 24, 2025 for raping 14-y 13f2bd51
[16/05, 09:00] Meta AI: *HC commutes death sentence of man convicted of repeated sexual assault on minor daughter*
_The Hindu | May 15, 2026, 09:48 pm IST | Madurai Bench_
_Division Bench: Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan & R. Poornima_

*1. Case background*
*Trial court*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *death sentence* to father in Dec 2025.

*Facts*:
1. *Repeated sexual assault* by father on minor daughter in 2024.
2. Girl *became pregnant and delivered a premature male child*. Child *died next day due to complications from perinatal asphyxia*.
3. Accused *threatened to kill her* if she disclosed the abuse.

*Appeal*: Man challenged conviction + sentence. HC also heard _referred trial_ for confirming death penalty.

*2. Madras HC ruling – May 15, 2026*
*Decision*: Commuted death to *life imprisonment*.

*Court’s reasoning*:
1. *Aggravating circumstances present*:
– _“Sexual assault was committed by the father… failing in the most basic duty of care and trust.”_
– _“Accused repeatedly committed the offence.”_
– _“Threatened the girl… would have caused physiological terror to the physical violation.”_
– _“Revealed extreme moral degradation, total disregard for the safety and dignity of the child.”_

2. *Why not death penalty*:
– _“To award capital punishment, the Supreme Court has laid down various guiding factors, and the same have to be meticulously followed.”_
– _“Present case, however, is not one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases where the court would find that life imprisonment is entirely inadequate”_
– _“Every punishment imposed affects not only the accused but also society as a whole”_ 18904b8a

*3. Directions for victim*
*State support*: _“Directed the State to bear the educational expenses of the girl, and her studies should continue without any interference.”_

*4. Legal context: Death penalty in POCSO cases*
1. *Statutory scheme*: POCSO Act, 2012, as amended 2019, permits death for _aggravated penetrative sexual assault_. But SC mandates _“rarest of rare”_ test from _Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980)_.
2. *Graded structure*: HC noted law has _“graded structure beginning with minimum 20 years, extending to imprisonment for remainder of natural life… and, in rarest cases, death penalty. This hierarchy unmistakably positions capital punishment as measure of last resort”_.
3. *Tirunelveli POCSO trend*: Special POCSO Court, Tirunelveli had awarded *2 death sentences in Dec 2025* for fathers raping daughters. HC has now commuted one. Another case involved 47-yr-old sentenced to death Dec 24, 2025 for raping 14-yr-old. 13f2bd51ab0e

*5. Related TOI reporting*
Confirms: Incident came to light when _“girl’s mother found out that her daughter was pregnant”_. FIR under POCSO Act. Special court convicted Dec 2025. 4b8a

*Bottom line*: Despite calling it _“extreme moral degradation”_ by a father, Madurai Bench held the case didn’t meet SC’s _“rarest of rare”_ threshold for death. Sentence reduced to life imprisonment. State to fund victim’s education. Reflects HC’s cautious approach on capital punishment even in brutal POCSO cases.

Want the full judgment or details on how _“rarest of rare”_ is determined in child sexual abuse cases?