High Court · 2025

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHICrl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025in Crl.A.(MD)No.175 of 2025Kumar,S/o.Chinnakaruppan,Kallarpatti, M-Surakudi,Singampunari Taluk,Sivagangai District.Petitioner(s) versusState of Tamil Nadu,The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Thiruppathur,Sivagangai District.Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Dr.R.AlagumaniAdvocateFor Respondent(s): Mr.P.Kottaichamy,Government Advocate (Crl. side)ORDERThe petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2019 on the file of thePrincipal Special Court (POCSO Act), Sivagangai. He was tried for the offence underSections 342, 323 IPC and Section 10 r/w. 9(m) of POCSO Act 2012. In conclusion of1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025trial, the trial Court, by its Judgment dated 14.10.2024, found the petitioner guilty forthe offence under Sections 342 and 323 IPC and Section 9(m) r/w. Section 10 ofPOCSO Act and convicted and sentenced him as under:(i) for the offence under Section 342 IPC, to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simpleimprisonment;(ii) for the offence under Section 323 IPC, to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simpleimprisonment;(iii) for the offence under Section 9(m) r/w. Section 10 of POCSO Act, toundergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in defaultto undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the Judgment of conviction, the petitioner has preferred an appealin Crl.A.(MD)No.175 of 2025 and the same has been admitted by this Court on13.02.2025. Now, the petitioner has moved this petition seeking to suspend thesentence imposed by the trial Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris in jail for the past 441 days. The learned counsel, by referring the contradictions2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025between the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7, submits that P.W.4, in his evidence, statedthat on hearing the alarm raised by the victim child, he went to the accused's houseand rescued the victim child, whereas, P.W.7, in his evidence, stated that based on thealarm raised by the victim child, he rushed to the accused's house, broke open thedoor and rescued the victim child. According to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, there is a difference between P.W.4 and P.W.7 in rescuing the victim child.He further submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and except thevictim child, there are no other witnesses. The injury suffered by the victim child asprojected by the prosecution is a self-inflicted one. He further submits that theaccused has suffered injury which has also been recorded by P.W.15. However, theinjury sustained by the accused has not been explained by the prosecution. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), by referring the evidence ofP.W.1 submits that P.W.1, the victim child, is a school going child aged about 10years. She used to go to the school in a bicycle and used to park the bicycle in front ofone Sandhiya's house, who is the friend of the victim child. On the fateful day, theaccused entrusted some work to her friend Sandhiya and also asked the victim childto go and verify as to whether his son is sleeping in the house. When the victim wentto the accused' house in order to ascertain whether the accused's son is sleeping3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025inside the house, the accused went behind the victim, locked the door, pushed herdown, strangulated her neck and also attempted to commit rape. The victim childraised an alarm and also fought with the accused. In the course of occurrence, thevictim sustained injuries that was also noted down by P.W.14. Apart from theevidence of P.W.1., the learned Government Advocate has also relied on the evidenceof P.W.4 and P.W.7, the neighbours of the accused, who rescued the victim from theaccused due to the alarm raised by the victim. Therefore, according to the learnedGovernment Advocate, it is a clear case, wherein, an attempt has been made by theaccused to commit rape on the victim child, who is the friend of his brother'sdaughter. 4. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materialsplaced on record.5. The victim is a school going child aged about 10 years and she used to go tothe school in a bicycle and she used to park the bicycle in front of Sandhiya's house,who is the friend of the victim child. The petitioner is the brother of Sandhiya's fatherand he is residing near Sandhiya's house. When the victim child parked her vehicle,the accused diverted P.W.9/Sandhiya, by asking her to ascertain whereabouts of hiswife and also directed the victim child to ascertain as to whether his son is sleepinginside the house. When the victim child went to the house of the accused, the4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025accused went behind the victim child, locked the door and also pushed her down andattempted to commit rape. The victim fought with the accused, during that time, shesustained injuries. The victim child was rescued by the neighbours on alarm raisedby the victim child. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.7, who are the neighbours, hassupported the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.9, who is the friend of P.W.1 and daughter ofthe accused's brother has also supported the evidence of P.W.1. Apart from that, theevidence of Doctor also reveals that the victim sustained injuries in the course ofoccurrence. 6. Considering the nature of offence and also considering the availableevidence as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.7. Since this Court refuses to grant suspension of sentence to the petitioner, theRegistry is directed to prepare typed set of papers and post the main appeal in thefirst week of July for final disposal. sd/- 24/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. OGY5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5505 of 2025TO1 THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE(POCSO ACT), SIVAGANGAI.2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,THIRUPPATHUR,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:THE SECTION OFFICER, T & P SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.5505 of 2025in Crl.A.(MD)No.175 of 2025 Date :24/04/2025 SS/SAR- /05/05/2025/ 6P/5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6