Raju v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Pudukottai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :30.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI in Crl.A(MD) No.234 of 2024 Raju ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District.

[Crime No.17 of 2019] ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 430 of BNSS, to suspend the sentence imposed in the conviction judgment passed in Spl.SC.No.61 of 2020 dated 14.12.2023 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Thoothukudi and enlarge the petitioner / appellant/ sole accused on bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal. For Petitioner : No representation For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused. He was tried for the offence u/s. 5(i), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed Crl.A(MD)No.234 of 2024. Pending the appeal, the petitioner has moved an application in CrlMP(MD)No.3316 of 2024 to suspend the sentence and it was dismissed by order dated 12.03.2025. Now this second application is filed to suspend the sentence. 2.When the earlier application was taken up for hearing on 12.03.2025 there was no representation for the petitioner. Twice it was listed and adjourned at the request of the petitioner. Even then the petitioner has not prosecuted the application. 3.Even today, when this petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.

2/5

4.The learned Government Advocate, by referring to the statements recorded u/s.164 CrPC and the statement of the victim girl, submitted that the victim girl, who was aged about 16 years, was exploited by the petitioner, who was aged about 50 years then. The victim girl got pregnant and delivered a child. The DNA test proved that the petitioner is the biological father of the child.

5.Considering the nature of offence and the manner which the petitioner has prosecuted the earlier petition and also this petition, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

6.Since typed set of papers is ready and the petitioner is in jail, Registry is directed to list the main appeal under the caption 'Accused in Jail Cases' during 2nd week of June 2026.

30.03.2026 DSK 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi.

Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI, J., DSK in Crl.A(MD) No.234 of 2024 30.03.2026 5/5