Seelan @ Jeyaseelan A v. The Inspector of Police

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman
Navin Sinha
K. M. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2020-12-16
Court Decision / Holding: The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Final Disposition: Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Seelan @ Jeyaseelan A

Respondents

The Inspector of Police

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R. Basant
• A. Velan
• Navpreet Kaur
• Shree Pal Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• R. Basant
• A. Velan
• Navpreet Kaur
• Shree Pal Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Special Leave Petition challenges the framing of charges and the State’s approach to Section 376 in a case involving a six-year-old rape victim. The petitioner, SEELAN (also referred to as Jeyaseelan A), faced charges under IPC Section 376, with contention that the prosecution framed the charge under 376(1) rather than 376(2). It is argued that the minimum punishment under 376(2)(f) is ten years, and that if the charge is strictly under 376(1) the enhanced minimum ought not to apply. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a judgment dated 22 July 2019 (Crl. RC (MD) No. 520 of 2015), found a concurrent factual determination that the victim, a six-year-old girl, was raped by the petitioner, with the victim’s mother as an eyewitness. The petitioner claimed impossibility in committing the act due to having only one hand, a matter addressed by the courts and found not to be an impossibility. The Supreme Court per Nariman, J. observed that the charges framed actually fall within 376, which includes 376(2), and noted the State had not preferred an appeal on this point. Because of the lapse of time and lack of challenge to the minimum sentence, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition without deciding on the Section 376(2) minimum punishment issue. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal CodeSection 376(1) of the Indian Penal CodeSection 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contended that the charge was framed under Section 376(1) and not under Section 376(2), seeking to avoid the higher minimum punishment under 376(2). He urged that if the case is only under 376(1), the ten-year minimum cannot be applied. He also highlighted the lack of State appeal on this aspect and pressed for a narrower charge framing to prevent unnecessarily stringent sentencing.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that the charge was not limited to Section 376(1) but fell within Section 376 as a whole, which encompasses 376(2). The Court’s summary indicates that the factual record—victim’s age, eye-witness testimony, the petitioner’s conduct, and lack of impossibility raised by the defense—supports the conclusion that the case lies within 376. Given the lapse of time, and that the State did not appeal, the Court did not engage in a separate analysis of the minimum punishment but dismissed the petition.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1235 [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1235 SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN A v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4206 of 2020 DECEMBER 16, 2020 B ## **[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ]** _Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2) - Plea of petitioner that the charge was under s.376(1) and not under s.376(2) - On facts, charge was framed under s.376 which would include s.376(2) - There was concurrent finding of fact that the victim who was only six year old was raped by the petitioner - The evidence of victim and her mother who was eye witness to the incident was on record - Special leave petition dismissed._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4206 of 2020. C D From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.2019 of the High Court of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. RC (MD) No. 520 of 2015. E R. Basant, Sr. Adv., A. Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was passed by ## **R. F. NARIMAN, J.** F 1. Our order dated 04.12.2020, records: “Having heard Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner for some time, when the Court pointed out that under Section 376(2)(f) the minimum punishment is 10 years, Mr. Basant pointed out that the charge was only under Section 376(1) and not under Section 376(2). G This being the case, we allow Mr. Basant to produce the order where charges have been framed. List after one week.” H 1235 1236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R. A 2. We have since perused the charges that have been framed. The charge was not only under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, as was sought to be argued by Mr. R. Basant, but was under Section 376, which includes Section 376(2). 3. Be that as it may, we find that there is a concurrent finding of B fact that the victim, who was only 6 years old, was raped by the petitioner. Quite apart from the victim’s testimony, there is also the testimony of her mother,who was an eye witness to the incident. 4. It was found that the petitioner is over 18 years old and was found to be potent. His _lungi_ was recovered and he himself absconded, C having been captured after 15 days of the incident. Both courts have recorded the argument of the accused that he has only one hand, as a result of which it would be physically impossible to have committed an act of rape. Both courts have dealt with this aspect of the case and we agree with them - there is no such impossibility. However, considering that the State has not filed an appeal and that the incident has taken D place 20 years ago, we dismiss the special leave petition, without going into Section 376(2) and whether a case is made out on facts for reducing the minimum punishment of 10 years. 5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. E Devika Gujral SLP dismissed. F G H