Ramadoss v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Three PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN IN CRL A(MD) No.59 of 2023 RAMADOSS ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs State Rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SATTUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO.8/2021.

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant in Spl.SC.No.46/2021 on the file of Special Court of POCSO Act Cases Virudhunagar District Srivilliputhur dt.8/11/2022 and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the instant criminal appeal. Prayer in CRL A(MD).59/2023 :

To admit the appeal preferred by this Appellant and call for the records of the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.46/2021 on the file of Special Court of POCSO Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur dated 08.11.2022 and set aside the same and thereby allow this Appeal.

Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SAMIDURAI K, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.B.NAMBI SELVAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court of POCSO Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur, dated 08.11.2022, in Special S.C.No.46 of 2021 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above said Criminal Appeal. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2021 at about 03.00 p.m., when the victim was playing in front of the accused 1/3

house, he was taken to his house and sexually abused him by inserted his private part in the mouth and thereby, had committed penetrative sexual assault. Upon which, a case in crime No.8 of 2021 was filed. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 366 IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and it was taken on file in S.S.C. No.46 of 2021, by the trial Court.

3.During trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and 11 documents marked. On the side of the accused, neither oral evidence nor documentary has been adduced. 4.At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 363 IPC and to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and also awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 7(3) of POCSO Rules.

5.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, criminal appeal has been preferred before this Court. Pending appeal, this miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking suspension of sentence.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a strong motive for the parents of the victim to implicate this petitioner in the above said offence. There is a delay of 4 days in preferring the complaint and no neighbour was also examined. 7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim was aged about only 3 years and was sexually abused by the petitioner, who was aged about 43 years. So according to him, no ground can be made out to suspend the sentence. 8.PW1 is the Junior Paternal Uncle of the victim and he has stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 3.45 p.m., he heard crying noise of the victim from the house of the accused. On hearing the noise, he went to the house and through the opening of the door, he saw the occurrence.

The accused inserted his private part in the mouth of the victim. On the basis of the above said occurrence complaint was lodged and the case has been registered. Absolutely, no motive was also brought on record. A simple motive was suggested that after the above said alleged date of occurrence as there was a quarrel between the two families. Except that no motive was also suggested. Whether there was any previous complaint by PW1 before the Sattur Police Station even though suggested, no document was produced before the Court by the defence to know the nature of the complaint. Simply because there was a delay of 4 days in giving the complaint, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

evidence of PW1 is sufficient enough to record a conviction is the only point which arises for consideration in the appeal. 9.Considering the manner in which the above said occurrence said to have been committed, this Court is of the view that this petitioner is not entitled for suspension of sentence. If he is released on bail by suspending the sentence, there is every likelihood to making trouble the victim.

10.Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 24/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /03/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

tm TO 1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT OF POCSO ACT CASES, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTTUR.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SATTUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate ( SR-2870[I] dated 24/02/2023 )

ORDER

IN IN CRL A(MD) No.59 of 2023 Date :24/02/2023 RS//SAR-4(14.03.2023) 3P 6C 3/3