High Court of Madras

Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018 (2022-1-LW(Crl)584)

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.

Case Notes

Facts

The accused was a married man who convinced the victim, who was 14 years old, to run away with him. After school one day, the Accused no. 1 and the victim ran away together and took her to the house of Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh (A-2) in Gudalur. Joseph Raja (A-3) also came by bus to the house of A-2 and in the presence of A-2 and A-3, A-1 forcefully had sex with the victim that night and thereafter for several days. The victim’s grandmother registered a complaint against the accused person. The trial court convicted all three accused persons and the present appeal was filed before the court.


Judgment

The High Court, while upholding the conviction of the accused persons, held that Section 29 of the POCSO Act is a presumption clause applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offense, and the accused must rebut the presumption. The court further held that Section 30 of the POCSO Act, which contains a presumption of mens rea, must be discharged when the foundational facts are established, which were established in the present case. However, owing to the fact that the victim and A-1 were in love, the sentences of the accused persons were reduced to the minimum sentence.