Dismissed¶30

Rajkumar v. State rep by, Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2025CRL MP/10482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence under S.430 BNSS 2023 refused — Madras High Court, G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., 24.06.2025, Crl.M.P.No.10482 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.571 of 2025; petitioner Rajkumar, sole accused convicted 30.09.2024 by Sessions Judge (POCSO), Karaikal, in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2023 (Crime No.20 of 2023, Thirunallar PS): S.366 A IPC 5 yrs RI + Rs.2,000; S.9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 1 yr RI; S.6 POCSO Act 2012 20 yrs RI + Rs.5,000; S.323 IPC 6 months SI; S.506(i) IPC 2 yrs SI; victim girl aged about 17; bail pending appeal denied.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no reasons to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner. ¶28

Rajkumar Vs State rep by, Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.10482 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.571 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.10482 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.571 of 2025

Rajkumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep By The Inspector of Police Thirunallar Police Station, Karaikal, Puducherry Crime No.20 of 2023

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant by the learned Sessions Judge (Under the POCSO Act, 2012), Karaikal in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2023 dated 30.09.2024 pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arun Kumar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.P.No.10482 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.571 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge (Under the POCSO Act, 2012), Karaikal, in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2023 dated 30.09.2024, and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶20

The petitioner, who is an accused in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2023, was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge (Under the POCSO Act, 2012), Karaikal, vide judgment dated 30.09.2024, as follows:

¶21

Rank of the accused	Conviction under Section	Sentence awarded
Sole accused	366 A of IPC	to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months
	9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.	to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
	6 of POCSO Act, 2012	to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.M.P.No.10482 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.571 of 2025

¶25

Rank of	Conviction under	Sentence awarded
the accused	Section
	323 of IPC	to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
	506(i) IPC	to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2years

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶27

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶28

This Court finds no reasons to suspend the sentence since the

¶29

Trial Court has gone through the evidence in its entirety and also finds that the petitioner had committed very serious and heinous offence as against the victim girl who is aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence.

¶30