Madras High Court
Mohamed Babu vs State Rep By on 9 June, 2023
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
Mohamed Babu .. Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
W-21, All Women Police Station,
Guindy, Chennai
(Crime No.2 of 2015) .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying
to call for the records and set aside the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Special Court for Cases under
POCSO Act 2012/Mahila Court, Chennai 600 104 in S.C.No.143 of
2015 dated 21.02.2018 and acquit the appellant from all the above
charges.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Paneerselvan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
JUDGEMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the
order passed in S.C.No.143 of 2015 by the Special Court for cases
under POCSO Act 2012, Mahila Court, Chennai dated 21.02.2018
in Crime No.2 of 2015 on the file of the The Inspector of Police,
W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai and acquit the
appellant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.143 of 2015 on the file of the
Special Court for cases under Section 10 of POCSO Act 2012,
Mahila Court, Chennai. He was prosecuted by the respondent Police
for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The trial Court, after trial, found guilty and convicted the accused
for the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 (2 counts) and
sentenced to undergo 5 years simple imprisonment for each count
and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each count in default to
undergo further period of 6 months simple imprisonment for each
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
count. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused is
now aged about 73 years. The trial Court ordered sentence to run
consecutively. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that he is not willing to argue the case on merits. Considering the
age of the accused is 73 years, this Court may order to run the
sentence concurrently and the petitioner is also ready to pay the fine
amount imposed by the trial Court.
3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted
that the age of the accused is 72 years and since the learned counsel
for the petitioner is not willing to argue the matter on merits with
regard to the sentence imposed on the petitioner, he has left it to the
Court to decide the matter.
4.I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
5.On perusal of the records, the fact reveals the case of the
prosecution is that the petitioner/Accused has sexually assaulted the
victim children aged about 9 years and 5 years respectively at the
time of the incident. Hence, he was prosecuted and after trial, he
was found guilty and was convicted as stated above. At the time of
the trial, the age of the accused is 68 years and now he is 73 years.
He is in judicial custody from 21.02.2018. Considering the fact that
the allegation is not of aggravated sexual assault upon the victims
and further considering the age of the accused and that he realised
the offence committed by him and also the fact that he is ready to
pay the fine amount before his release from the prison, it would meet
ends of justice, if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is ordered
to run concurrently, Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
modify only the sentence portion of the judgment of the trial Court.
6.In the result, the criminal appeal is disposed of. The finding
of the trial Court is confirmed and the sentence portion is modified
to the extent that “The sentence imposed for the offence should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
run concurrently” instead of “The sentence imposed for the offence
should run consecutively”. The petitioner is directed to pay the fine
amount before his release from the prison. The appeal is disposed
of with the above modification.
09.06.2023
srn
To
1. The learned Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act
2012/Mahila Court, Chennai 600 104
2. The Inspector of Police,
W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
V.SIVAGNANAM.J
srn
Crl.A.No.1129 of 2022
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
