Date of Review: February 29, 2024
Review By: [D. Sathyanarayanan/Student]
Introduction: The case of Rajasekar v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police pertains to an appeal under Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2024, concerning the conviction of the appellant under sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. The appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) along with a fine, which was the subject of review in this proceeding.
Summary of the Case: The appellant, Rajasekar, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 26.10.2021, which upheld the appellant’s conviction and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The primary contention raised by the appellant was regarding the quantum of sentence awarded, arguing that he had already served more than the minimum prescribed sentence under section 4 of the POCSO Act and was providing for the victim and her child, thus requesting leniency.
Review Analysis: The review primarily focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant. The Court considered the arguments presented by both the appellant and the State, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the case. It was noted that the appellant had already served a significant portion of the sentence and was supporting the victim and her child financially.
Judgment Outcome: After careful consideration, the Court found merit in the appellant’s plea for leniency. While upholding the conviction under sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act, the Court modified the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The period of imprisonment was reduced to the time already served by the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the judgment review of Rajasekar v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 152, resulted in the partial allowance of the appeal. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, taking into consideration the principles of justice and mitigating circumstances presented during the review process.
The Essential Cog 