Sole accused convicted under Section 452 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act sought suspension of his twenty-year sentence pending appeal. His earlier suspension petition had been dismissed. Considering the gravity of the offence against a 95% disabled victim, the court refused to suspend the sentence and listed the appeal for final disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5351 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5351 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.832 of 2023
V.Manikandan, S/o.Veerapandi, 3/326, South Street, Mettamalai, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
Petitioner(s)
versus
The State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sivagurunathan, Advocate
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.62 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Virudhunagar District
1/4
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5351 of 2025
at Srivilliputhur. He was tried for the offence under Section 452 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. In conclusion of trial, the trial Court, by its Judgment dated 01.06.2023, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 452 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced him as under:
(i) for the offence under Section 452 IPC, to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment;
(ii) for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.832 of 2023 and the same has been admitted by this Court on 12.09.2023. The petitioner has already moved a petition in Crl.M.P. (MD)No.13055 of 2023 seeking to suspend the sentence and the same was dismissed
by this Court, by order dated 27.09.2024. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the second petition seeking to suspend the sentence.
is in jail for more than two years. The learned counsel has also raised certain points. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5351 of 2025
Those points have already been considered by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13055 of 2023 and rejected, by order dated 27.09.2024.
sd/22/04/2025 / TRUE COPY /
/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
3/4
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5351 of 2025
OGY
TO
1 THE JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
+1 CC to M/s.S.SIVA GURUNATHAN, Advocate ( SR-4546[I] dated 22/04/2025 )
ORDER
IN CRL MP(MD) No.5351 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.832 of 2023 Date :22/04/2025
SS/SAR- /28/04/2025/ 4P/6C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Should the sentence imposed on the petitioner, already in jail over two years after POCSO conviction, be suspended pending appeal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Manikandan
The State through The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sattur, Virudhunagar District
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
