Thirumal Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

*Section of offence*	*Sentence imposed*
Section 363 IPC	To undergo 7years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
	To undergo 10 years rigorous
Section 5(1) punishable under Section 6 of	imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
POCSO Act	10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶28

2\6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.P. No. 235 of 2026

¶31

in Crl.A. No. 14 of 2026

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, he filed Crl.A.No.14 of 2026 before this Court along with the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶33

3 . The gist of the prosecution case is that the victim girl was aged about 15 years at the relevant point of time; the petitioner/accused, under the pretext of loving her, had enticed the victim girl, kidnapped her, took her to Bangalore and committed sexual assault on several occasions and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

¶34

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the FIR was registered in the year 2014, the final report was filed only in the year 2020, which was taken on file in 2023; that the investigation was conducted only in the year 2020, as could be seen from the Observation Mahazar, which was prepared in the year 2020; that the victim herself had given statements before the Investigating Officer, which were contrary to her deposition in Court; that the victim had admitted that she had gone voluntarily with the petitioner and in view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence.

¶35

3\6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.M.P. No. 235 of 2026

¶38

in Crl.A. No. 14 of 2026

¶39

5 . Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for

¶40

the respondent and perused the counter affidavit.

¶41

6 . It is seen from the cross-examination of the victim that

¶42

the victim has made several inconsistent statements. Even according to her, she had voluntarily gone with the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no investigation was conducted for a period of 6 years after the registration of FIR.

¶43

7 . Considering all the above facts, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of suspension of sentence to the petitioner.

¶44

8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the above criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be

¶45

released on bail on the following conditions:

¶46

(i)The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Exclusive

¶47

4\6

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.M.P. No. 235 of 2026

¶50

in Crl.A. No. 14 of 2026

¶51

Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dharmapuri;

¶52

(ii)The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity; and

¶53

(iii)The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the appeal and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the Trial Court.

¶54

27.01.2026

¶55

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶56

nv

¶57

To

¶58

1. The Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dharmapuri.

¶59

2. The Superintendent,