RAJASEKAR v. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Rajasekar, was convicted by the Sessions Court on 03 February 2017 for offences under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. He was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined INR 5,000, with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment. The Sessions Court also directed the State Government to pay INR 1,00,000 to the victim as compensation under Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012.

On 26 October 2021, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appellant’s Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2017 and affirmed both conviction and sentence. The appellant sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. By order dated 12 July 2022, the Supreme Court issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence. The present Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5104 of 2022) therefore concerns only the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in light of the appellant having served more than the then-statutory minimum sentence of seven years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the term of imprisonment should be reduced from ten years to the period already undergone.

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, and the appellant has already served more than this period.
• The appellant is financially supporting the victim and her child; prolonged incarceration would adversely affect both his family and the victim’s welfare.
• On these grounds, the appellant sought judicial leniency and a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.

Respondent’s Arguments

The opinion does not detail distinct arguments advanced by the respondent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court confined its inquiry to the quantum of sentence, as notice had been issued only on that limited aspect. After hearing counsel and “considering the totality of the circumstances,” the Court noted that:

• The appellant has already served more than seven years in custody, exceeding the statutory minimum applicable at the time of conviction.
• Continuing imprisonment would have adverse consequences not only for the appellant’s family but also for the victim, whom the appellant has been assisting financially.

Balancing these considerations, the Court found that “the ends of justice would be met” by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, while leaving the conviction itself undisturbed.

Holding and Implications

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone. Appeal partly allowed.

The appellant is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The decision affects only the quantum of sentence in this particular matter and does not set out any broader legal precedent or modify existing jurisprudence under the POCSO Act.