Suresh v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 366 IPC and 6 POCSO, the High Court set aside the Section 366 conviction, modified it to Section 363 IPC due to custody removal, upheld the POCSO conviction, and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
What did the court decide?
Conviction under Section 366 IPC set aside and substituted with Section 363 IPC; conviction under Section 6 POCSO sustained; appeal dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.499 of 2020
Suresh ... Appellant/Accused Vs. State By: Inspector of Police W-21, All Woman Police Station Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Crime No.1/2017]. ... Respondent/Complainant
... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgement in S.C. No.31 of 2018 dated 03.11.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court of exclusive trial of cases in so far as convicting the Appellant/Accused under 366 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo further period of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and convicting the Appellant/Accused under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed with a find of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further period of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and the sentence ordered to run concurrently.
For Appellant : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai H.Maruthiraj, Legal Aid Counsels and M/s.T.Shanmuga Boopathi, for Petitioner
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 366 IPC should be modified to Section 363 IPC given the facts involved removal of custody from guardians without consent.
Whether the appellate court finds reasonable doubt regarding the victim's consent and the occurrence of sexual assault despite alleged contradictions in testimony.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint or the hostile nature of the sole witness vitals the prosecution case in a POCSO offence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Suresh
- respondent
State (By: Inspector of Police W-21)
Coram
P. Velmurugan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court