- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 5 February 2024
- Bench
- Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma
- Case no.
- Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2024
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.
Headnote
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]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Order Leave granted.
¶2The 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.
¶3At 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.
¶4Vide 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.
¶5Learned 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.
¶6Having 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.
¶7The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case.
¶8With 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.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.756 of From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.176 of 2017
Appearances
B Karunakaran, Mrs. K Balambihai, Ajith Williyam S, V M Eashwar, S. Gowthaman, Advs. for the Appellant.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.