Madras High Court
Selvi vs State Rep. By on 8 August, 2022
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
Selvi .. Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Malliakarai Police Station,
Malliakarai-Post,
Salem-District.
(Crime No.192 of 2013) .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) & (3)
Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence made in Special Sessions Case No.71 of
2020 (Old Special Sessions Case No.164 of 2014) on the file of the Principal
Special Court for the exclusive trial of POCSO Act cases, Salem dated
14.12.2021 and grant bail to the Petitioner/Appellant No.2/Accused No.3.
For petitioner : Mr.D.Veerasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/9
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
ORDER
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend
the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed
in Special Sessions Case No.71 of 2020 (Old Special Sessions Case No.164
of 2014) on the file of the Principal Special Court for the exclusive trial of
POCSO Act cases, Salem and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending
disposal of the above appeal.
2.The petitioner, who was Accused No.3 in Special Session Case No.71
of 2020 before the Principal Special Court for the exclusive trial of POCSO
Act cases, Salem, was convicted and sentenced as follows on 14.12.2021:
Provision under which
S.No. Sentence
convicted
3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of
1 Section 366 IPC Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months
simple imprisonment.
Sections 5(1) r/w.6, r/w
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-,
17 of Protection of
2 in default to undergo six months simple
Children from Sexual
imprisonment.
Offence Act, 2012
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
3. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner/3rd
Accused along with 1st Accused has filed Crl.A.No.398 of 2022 along with
the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail in
respect of petitioner/3rd accused alone.
4. Heard Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent/State.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is the grand
daughter of the complainant viz., Karupaiyi, who was under the custody of
the de-facto complainant. The victim was in love with the 2nd Accused.
Initially, the 1st Accused was instigating the victim to marry him. While so,
on 08.10.2013 morning, based on the instruction given by the 2nd Accused
the victim girl left her house and thereafter A1 and A3 with the intention of
subjecting the victim to sexual intercourse with A2 have kidnapped her and
taken her to Medavakkam, Chennai and took the house for rent and awaited
for the arrival of A2 who was residing at Jharkhand. While so, on
10.10.2013, when the 3rd accused had gone to shopping, the 1st accused had
committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and repeated the same
on 11.10.2013. When the 2nd accused, came to Chennai, all the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
had taken the victim to the nearby temple and the 2nd accused married her by
tying thali and thereafter A2 had committed penetrative sexual assault on the
victim.
6. After completing the investigation, the respondent/police has
filed a final report against the 1st Accused for the offences under Sections
363, 366 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w. 5(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012; the 2nd Accused for the offences under Section 363, 366
r/w. 109 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w.5 (1) of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012 and the 3rd accused for the offences under Sections 363,
366 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w. 5(1) r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012 .
7.Since the 2nd Accused passed away during the pendency of the trial,
the charge as against the 2nd accused got abated. The trial Court, after
considering the evidence on record and hearing either side found the accused
A1 & A3 “guilty” and convicted and sentenced them as follows:
Accuse Provision under
Sentence
d.No. which convicted
A1 Section 366 IPC 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
Accuse Provision under
Sentence
d.No. which convicted
months simple imprisonment.
Sections 5(l) r/w.6,
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-
of Protection of
in default to undergo 6 months Simple
Children from Sexual
Imprisonment.
Offence Act, 2012
3 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Section 366 IPC Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months
months simple imprisonment.
A3 Sections 5(l) r/w.6
r/w.17, of Protection Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-
of Children from in default to undergo 6 months Simple
Sexual Offence Act, Imprisonment.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was arrayed as A3 and the allegation as against the petitioner is
that she abetted other accused in commission of the alleged offences. He
would further submit that even as per the Charge Sheet, A1 is said to have
committed the offence, when the Petitioner had gone out for shopping and
there is absolutely no material to show that the Petitioner has abetted the
other accused to commit the crime. He would further submit that the P.W.1-
Grand mother of the victim girl who is the complainant has also not
supported the case of the prosecution. However, she has not been treated
hostile by the prosecution. He would further submit that immediately after
the occurrence the victim has not been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
is his further contention that P.W.4- owner of the house, in his evidence has
not spoken about the presence of the Petitioner at Chennai. He deposed that
he had seen only the 1st and 3rd accused along with the victim girl in the
house. It is his further submission that the petitioner has raised valid
grounds in the appeal and prayed for suspension of sentence and bail to the
petitioner.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt by examining
thirteen witnesses and marking twenty two exhibits and four material objects.
Hence, he opposed the grant of suspension of sentence and bail to the
petitioner.
11. The petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the appeal,
which require detailed appraisal. Moreover, as per the charge A1 is stated to
have committed the offence when the petitioner had gone out for shopping.
Further, the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view
of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the
relief of suspension of sentence and bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
and the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted to the
petitioner on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of
the Principal Special Court for the exclusive Trial of
POCSO Act Cases, Salem;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 1st
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;
(iv) Independent of Section 317 Cr.P.C., in case of any
emergency due to treatment, hospitalization, sudden death
of her relatives, etc., the petitioner shall also intimate the
jurisdictional police about the details of place of visit, name
of the contact person with Aadhar card or any other photo
identity of that person along with reasons therefor and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis number of days of absence in the locality, before leaving
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
Tamil Nadu;
(v) The petitioner shall furnish her mobile number, which shall
not be changed till the issue comes to a logical conclusion
and permanent residential address to the police and the trial
Court. The petitioner is permitted to change the portability
and not the mobile number; and
(vi) The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of
the respondent/police station.
(S.V.N., J.) (A.D.J.C., J.)
08.08.2022
arr
To
1.The Principal Special Court for
the exclusive trial of POCSO Act Cases, Salem.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Malliakarai Police Station,
Malliakarai-Post,
Salem-District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
arr
Crl.M.P.No.4849 of 2022
in Crl.A.No.398 of 2022
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
