Rajasekar v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Vikram Nath
Satish Chandra Sharma
Judgment Date: 2024-02-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is upheld. However, the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant. The Appellant is to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajasekar

Respondents

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B Karunakaran
• Mrs. K Balambihai
• Ajith Williyam S
• V M Eashwar
• S. Gowthaman

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rajasekar challenged the conviction and the quantum of punishment imposed by the lower courts for offences under sections 3(a) read with section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to ten years' RI, a fine of Rs 5,000 with a default clause of three months' SI, and an order directing the government to pay Rs 1,00,000 as compensation to the victim under Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012. The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave only on the quantum of sentence; the court noted that at conviction the minimum sentence prescribed for Section 4 was seven years, and that the appellant had already served more than seven years. He contended that his ongoing support for the victim and her child and the impact on his family warranted leniency. After hearing the parties and considering the totality of circumstances, the Court held that ends of justice require reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone, while upholding the conviction. The appeal was allowed in part; the appellant is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and all pending applications disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 3(a) r/w Section 4POCSO Rules, 2012 – Rule 7(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant's counsel argued that under Section 4 the minimum sentence is seven years and that the appellant has already served more than seven years. He also submitted that the appellant provides day-to-day support for the victim and her child, and that further imprisonment would adversely affect his family and the victim. He urged the Court to grant leniency and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, while confirming the conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

No explicit submissions from the respondents are recorded in the provided excerpt; the record indicates that the appellant's counsel pressed for leniency and that the Court considered the totality of circumstances to determine the quantum of sentence.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 152 : 2024 INSC 96 ## **Rajasekar** ## **v.** ## **The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police** (Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2024) 5 February 2024 **[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** The appellant who was convicted for offence u/ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded the sentence of ten years RI alongwith a fine, the quantum of sentence awarded, if justified. ## **Headnotes** **Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 – Quantum of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss. 3(a)/4 and sentenced to ten years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to undergo SI for three months alongwith the compensation of Rs One Lakh to the victim by the courts below – In appeal before this Court, the appellant’s plea that at the time of conviction, the minimum sentence prescribed u/s. 4 was seven years and as on date, the appellant have already served more than seven years of his sentence; and that the appellant is providing for the dayto-day expenses of the victim and her child:** **Held:** Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, the period of imprisonment awarded is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant – However, the conviction u/s. 3(a) r/w s. 4 is upheld – Sentence/ sentencing. [Para 6] ## **List of Acts** Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ## **List of Keywords** Protection of Children from Sexual Offences; Quantum of sentence; Compensation; Minimum sentence; Sentence modified; Sentence reduced. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 153 ## **Rajasekar v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police** ## **Case Arising From** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.756 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.176 of 2017 ## **Appearances for Parties** B Karunakaran, Mrs. K Balambihai, Ajith Williyam S, V M Eashwar, S. Gowthaman, Advs. for the Appellant. ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Order** 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 [2024] 2 S.C.R. 154 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** 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. _Headnotes prepared by:_ Nidhi Jain _Result of the case:_ Appeal partly allowed.