Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rajasekar – Appellants
VERSUS
The State rep. By The Inspector of Police – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 756 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 5104 of 2022]
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 3(a) read with Section 4 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 Rule 7(2) – Conviction – Quantum of sentence – 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 – State Government was also directed to pay INR 1,00,000 to victim as compensation under Rule 7(2) of POCSO Rules, 2012 – Sentence imposed by Sessions Court was confirmed by High Court without any modification – Appellant has already served more than seven years of his sentence – Appellant is providing for day-to-day
expenses of victim and her child – Ends of justice would be met if period of imprisonment awarded against Appellant is reduced to period already undergone by him – Conviction of Appellant Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 hereby confirmed – However, sentence imposed by Sessions Court and confirmed by High Court hereby modified and reduced to period already undergone by Appellant.(Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is aggrieved by Judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal whereby High Court dismissed appeal preferred by Appellant and confirmed Judgement passed by Sessions Court, convicting Appellant for offences u/S. 3(a) r/w Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Findings of Court:
Appellant be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
ORDER
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 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 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.
Quantum of sentence can be altered to meet ends of justice.
Aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Minimum sentence of twenty years can be imposed in place of higher punishment of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life of convict.
The court has the discretion to consider the age and mitigating circumstances of the appellant in modifying the sentence, in accordance with the provisions under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal....
Conviction under POCSO Act upheld; sentence modified to statutory minimum considering time served.
Sentencing under the POCSO Act must adhere to the law in effect at the time of the offense, and courts can consider the duration of custody when determining appropriate sentences.
Sentencing must align with the law in force at the time of the offence. Appellate courts possess the inherent authority to direct that multiple sentences arising from a single transaction run concurr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
