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

1. 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.