Madras HC confirms death penalty in POCSO case involving three minor girls

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 30, 2026) upheld the death sentence awarded to a daily wage labourer, Anandha Sekar, for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of three girl children aged six, seven and eight in Tirunelveli city in 2023. The conviction and capital punishment were originally imposed by a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 on March 12, 2026.

A Division Bench comprising Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan dismissed the convict's criminal appeal challenging both the conviction and the sentence. The judgment was reserved at the Madurai Bench of the High Court but delivered at the principal seat in Chennai.

In their judgment, the judges noted the vulnerability of children and the calculated nature of the crimes. They stated that the accused did not merely commit a crime against the physical body but executed a systematic campaign of terror, using threats of death and forcing the children to witness the violation of each other. The court observed that the crimes extinguished the light of childhood and left behind haunting shadows.

The Bench emphasised that the death penalty is an extraordinary measure reserved for the rarest of rare cases, and this case fit that exception. They wrote that sparing the life of the perpetrator would be misplaced mercy and would render the law a silent spectator to the destruction of innocence. The judges also cautioned that commuting the sentence to life imprisonment would send a message that the soul of a child is cheap and that a monster could trade the lifelong peace of victims for the comfort of a prison cell.

The court cited the Supreme Court's 1992 verdict in Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey, which held that judges bearing the sword of justice should not hesitate to use it with utmost severity when the gravity of the offence demands. The Bench concluded that this case demanded such severity.

The judges further stated that the convict had forfeited his right to walk among humanity, and that the confirmation of the death sentence was not an act of vengeance but a solemn duty to justice, deterrence, and the restoration of moral order. They intended the judgment to serve as a stark warning to anyone who believes they can prey on children with impunity.