Seerin Jenath v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI in Crl.A(MD) No.172 of 2025 Seerin Jenath ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.
... Respondent For Petitioner :
Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner/A2 in Spl.SC.No.159 of 2023, on the file of the Special Court under POCSO Act, Dindigul was found guilty by the trial Court and she was convicted and sentenced as under:- Sl.No Sections Punishment Fine amount Default 1.
14(1) of POCSO Act years Rigorous imprisonment Rs.50,000/- 6 months simple imprisonment 67B of Informatio n Technology Act, 2000 years Rigorous Imprisonmen t Rs.10,000/- 6 months simple imprisonment 2.
1/4
As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in Spl.SC.No.159 of 2023, dated 24.01.2025, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.172 of 2025 and the same has been admitted by this Court on 12.02.2025. The petitioner has also moved this application to suspend the sentence imposed on her by the trial Court.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner is A2, wife of A1. The allegation as against this petitioner is that she has forwarded the photos of the victim girl, which were found in the mobile phone of A1 to the uncle of the victim girl to appraise her conduct. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail from the date of conviction on 24.01.2025.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent strongly objects for grant of suspension of sentence that after considering the evidence and the documents placed before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has convicted this petitioner along with A1, her husband.
4.This Court has considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
5.The petitioner has raised certain arguable points, which can be considered only during the final hearing of the appeal. However the appeal could not be taken up for final hearing for want of time. Considering the points raised by the petitioner, 2/4
his period of incarceration and for the reasons that the appeal could not be taken up immediately, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court for POCSo Act Cases, Dindigul and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay at Vellore and report before the Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore, daily at 10.30 a.m., till the disposal of the appeal. sd/- 13/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
vrn TO 1 THE JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO ACT CASES, DINDIGUL. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, MADURAI.
3/4
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
COPY TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BAGAYAM POLICE STATION, VELLORE.
ORDER
IN in Crl.A(MD) No.172 of 2025 Date :13/03/2025 RS/SKN/SAR-(17.03.2025) 4P 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4