RAJASEKARversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

           [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 day-
to-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
154                                                                [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                         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.