Dismissed

Raja v. State Represented by

Madras HC9 Dec 2024CRL MP/9594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. pending disposal of a POCSO appeal. The court noted the plaintiff godown for the case against Rule to rule against Rule to suspend Rule to release. The court dismissed the petition, noting the insufficient prima facie case for suspension based on the evidence presented.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and bail was dismissed.

Raja Vs State Represented by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

Raja

... Petitioner

Vs.

Inspector of Police, W-13, AWPS, Washermenpet, Chennai – 21.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai – 104 in Spl.S.C.No.01 of 2022 by the judgment dated 20.11.2023 and enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail, pending disposal of the above criminal appeal before this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Syed Abdul Mashood For Respondent : Mr.S. Rajakumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶18

We have gone through the evidence of victim girl (P.W.1). She had narrated the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence of the doctor's examination and deposition, more specifically in paragraphs 5.21 and 5.22, which reads as under:-

¶19

“... 5.21 . The DNA was extracted from the above blood samples and amplified for amelogenin that is sex locus and also for 15 STR loci using PCR amplified technique after due care. The DNA typing results of the small limp of the baby is given in annexutre II, the mother the victim child is given in annexuture III. A comprehensive analysis of the test results and the interpretation there off are given in annexure 4. According to which, it is found that the accused is not found excluded from the paternity of the foetus to whom the small limp belongs under any of the 15 STR loci tested.

¶20

5.22. The cumulative probability of paternity of the accused according to their computation, for being

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶22

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶23

the father of the foetus to whom the small limb belongs is 99.999997. The cumulative chance of exclusion of any random man from the paternity of foetus of to whom the small limp belongs is 99.9999999999999%. From the DNA typing results of the all the three samples, she gave her conclusions that, it is found that the small limp belongs to a male foetus. The accused is the biological father of the foetus to whom the small limb belongs. She sent her report to the court. The reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory is marked as Ex-P.13 series. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

¶24

2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of suspension of sentence, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶25

3. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

¶26

(S.M.S, J.) (M.J.R, J.) 09.12.2024

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶28

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶29

Sni

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶31

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶32

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶33

Sni

¶34

¶35

1.The Inspector of Police, W-13, AWPS, Washermenpet, Chennai – 21.

¶36

2.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai – 104

¶37

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104.

¶38

Crl.M.P.No.9594 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.859 of 2024

¶39

09.12.2024

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Raja v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Priya Vs the City Police Commissioner

Sekar Vs the State Rep.by

K.Eshak, Vs Union of India

C.Gunashekharan @ Guna @ Prem Kumar Vs Union of India Rep by

Vimala D/o.Late Veluchamy Vs the State Represented by Its

J.Arunmani Vs Union of India, Rep. by