RAJASEKAR versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 05-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH

Judgment (excerpt)

[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, sha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.