New Delhi: The Madras High Court has set aside the death penalty handed to an alcoholic man who had raped and impregnated his minor daughter.
It commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of Murugan’s life, noting that he is already living in “stark isolation”, cut off from family, village, and society at large. This condition, akin to a “living exile”, is not a mere incidental hardship but a continuing and severe form of punishment, a two-judge bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan said.
Commuting a sentence essentially involves reducing or modifying an offender’s punishment to a lesser, lighter penalty without erasing conviction. It usually involves reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment or shortening a prison term.
Emphasising that life imprisonment till natural death is not a lenient alternative, but rather a more enduring and severe form of punishment with intense suffering, the court noted that such sentencing ensures prolonged deprivation of liberty and compels the offender to endure the consequences of his actions every single day.
The court also said that unlike capital punishment, life imprisonment imposes a continuous psychological burden, forcing the convict to live with the weight of his crime throughout lifetime. In such a scenario, a convict remains alive to reckon with the past, it said.
Setting aside the January 2026 trial court order handing the death penalty, it said that the trial judge was influenced by “emotion, sentiment and the horror of the offence”, and failed to consider the lack of legal assistance he had, and the denial of a meaningful hearing on his sentence.
“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,” the court said in its April 7 ruling.
How case unfolded
In December last year, the special court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli, had convicted Murugan for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and criminal intimidation against his 14-year-old daughter. Subsequently, in January, the trial court handed Murugan the death penalty, on grounds that raping his own daughter was a grave and heinous crime.
The girl’s mother used to do agricultural work, and stayed away from the house for long periods of time. It was in her absence that the girl was sexually assaulted and she kept quiet owing to the fact that he would threaten to kill her, the girl’s testimony said.
In her testimony, the girl told the court that she was subjected to sexual assault, after being inebriated and under the influence of alcohol, at least 20 times, leading to her pregnancy.
When the mother took her to the hospital on noticing changes in her physical appearance, the hospital staff informed the police, as part of their obligation under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act which requires mandatory reporting of such offences by authorities such as hospitals, irrespective of the minor’s consent. Failure to do so, can result in six months imprisonment under Section 21, as well.
On the other hand, the girl’s father argued that there was a delay in collecting his blood samples and the DNA analysis could not be relied on. This was despite the foetus properly preserved, handled, and subjected to DNA testing in line with established procedure.
He also argued that there was an unexplained delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR), and the prosecution failed to specify precise dates and times of the alleged sexual assault incidents. Murugan also said he was poor and the sole breadwinner of his family.
Also Read: DNA tests by botanist, a ‘confession’ & a missing witness—2 acquitted by SC in minor’s rape-murder
What court ruled
Relying on the DNA analysis, medical reports, the victim and her mother’s testimony, the court said that she gave a clear, cogent, and consistent account of her father’s acts.
“The evidence on record—particularly the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence—establishes the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt,” it noted in a 98-page ruling.
Upholding Murugan’s conviction, the bench set aside the death sentence imposed by the trial court in its January order. “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, in carrying out such a grave responsibility, the court said that particularly in the sentencing stage, the trial court should not be swayed by emotion or sentiment.
Relying on a spate of SC rulings like the 2014 decision in Mohd. Arif vs Supreme Court, the bench said that of late, courts have been adopting a more cautious and restrained approach in handing capital punishment, particularly considering the possibilities of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused,
It is pertinent to note that even in cases involving offences under the POCSO Act, including those coupled with extreme aggravating factors, the Supreme Court has, in appropriate cases, commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life till the end of natural life, upon finding that the case did not satisfy the stringent threshold of the “rarest of rare” category.
Imposition of the death penalty cannot be mechanical or routine, the court said while adding that it must be reserved for the gravest and most exceptional cases where the alternative punishments are unquestionably inadequate.
(Edited by Tony Rai)