Dismissed

K.Venkatesh v. State Rep.by

Madras HC22 Jul 2021CRL MP/6972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an appellant accused under the POCSO Act seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal, the High Court of Madras refused bail. The Court held that considering the victim was below 12 years and the grave nature of the offence, it was not inclined to grant suspension.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the sentence dated 22.04.2021 and release on bail pending disposal of the appeal are denied.

K.Venkatesh Vs State Rep.by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Second day of July Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. VELMURUGAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.6972 of 2021

IN CRL A.351/2021

K.VENKATESH

[APPELLANT/ACCUSED]

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-6, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI. CR.NO.3/2018.

¶12

[RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ]

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶14

(i) To suspend the execution of the sentenced dated 22.04.2021 passed in the court of Sessions Judge, Special court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act S.C.No.183 of 2018 against the appellant by the Sessions Judge chennai and the appellant who is remanded to judicial custody after Judgement be released on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.351 of 2021.

¶15

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.A.PUNITHAVANAN, Advocate for the petitioner, and of MR.S.SUGENDRAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE [CRL. SIDE] on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶16

The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2018 against the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 6 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short).

¶17

After completing formalities, laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act.

¶18

After completing formalities, the learned Sessions Judge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, taken the

¶19

charge sheet on file in S.C.No.183 of 2018 and after completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 6 and 12 of POCSO Act.

¶20

After completing trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 9(m) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in defalut to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

¶21

Challening the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal and he has also filed C.M.P.No.6972 of 2021, to suspend the execution of the sentence.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the occurance taken place on 04.04.2018, whereas the date of complaint is 10.04.2018. Therefore, the trial Court failed to consider the delay in filing the complaint and also no independent witness was examined and the trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant.

¶23

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Since the victim was below 12 years and the appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act, considering the age of the victim and offence committed is grave in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension of sentence.

¶25

Accordinly, Crl.M.P.No.6972 of 2021 is dismissed.

¶26

-sd/-

¶27

22/07/2021

¶28

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶31

¶32

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, CHENNAI.

¶33

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-6, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI.

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL,

¶37

C.C. to M/S.A.PUNITHAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶38

in CRL MP.6972/2021 in CRL A.351/2021 Date :22/07/2021

¶39

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶40

TA-26/07/2021

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Venkatesh v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkatesh v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamaraj Vs Madhaiyan

Kathirvel Vs State Rep.by

M.Rajendren Vs the State Rep by

Craigmore Plantations (I) Privated Limited Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/

Venkatraj Vs State Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Arulraj Vs State Rep.by