- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
RAJASEKAR v. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Factual and Procedural Background
Rajasekar (“the Appellant”) was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). He was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI), fined ₹5,000 (with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment), and the State was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the victim. On 3 February 2017, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the Appellant’s Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2017 and affirmed the sentence.
The Appellant challenged only the quantum of sentence before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5104 of 2022. By order dated 12 July 2022, the Supreme Court limited notice to the question of sentence. The appeal thus concerns solely whether the ten-year sentence should stand.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of ten years’ RI imposed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act should be reduced in view of the Appellant having already undergone more than the statutory minimum sentence of seven years.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- At the time of conviction, the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act was seven years; the Appellant has already served more than that period.
- The Appellant financially supports the day-to-day needs of the victim and her child; further incarceration would harm both the Appellant’s family and the victim’s family.
- On these grounds, leniency and reduction of the remaining custodial sentence were sought.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court confined itself to the sentencing issue, noting that the conviction was not under challenge. After hearing counsel and “considering the totality of the circumstances,” the Bench concluded that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone. The mitigating factors emphasised included: (a) the Appellant having served more than the statutory minimum sentence, and (b) the potential adverse impact of continued imprisonment on both the Appellant’s and the victim’s families. The Court therefore modified the trial court’s sentence while expressly affirming the conviction.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Conviction under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act is confirmed; the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The Appellant is to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The appeal is allowed in part and stands disposed of.
Implications: The ruling provides immediate relief to the Appellant but is fact-specific and sets no broader precedent on sentencing under the POCSO Act.
2024 INSC 96
SLP(Crl.) No. 5104 of 2022 Page 1 of 3
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 5104 of 2022] RAJASEKAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP. BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant before us is aggrieved by the judgement dated 26.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant and confirmed the judgement dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Sessions Court--convicting the Appellant for offences u/S. 3(a) r/w Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ('POCSO') Act, 2012.
3. At the outset, it must be noted that vide order dated 12.07.2022, this Court issued notice only on the quantum of
1
sentence awarded to the Appellant. Therefore, only that limited question is required to be considered by this Court.
4. Vide the judgement of the Sessions Court, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo ten years RI along with a fine of INR 5,000 with a default clause to undergo SI for three months. The State Government was also directed to pay INR 1,00,000 to the victim as compensation under Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Court was confirmed by the High Court without any modification.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that at the time of conviction, the minimum sentence prescribed u/Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act was seven years and as on date, the Appellant has already served more than seven years of his sentence. It is also submitted that the Appellant is providing for the day-to-day expenses of the victim and her child and therefore, further imprisonment will impact not only his family but also the victim's. On these grounds, Learned Counsel presses for leniency.
6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the period of imprisonment awarded against the Appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the Appellant u/s. u/S. 3(a) r/w
2
Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant.
7. The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.
8. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 05, 2024
3
Alert