Libertatem Magazine

Madras High Court Modified the Sentence for Sexual Assault from Five Years to Three Years

Contents of this Page

In Manohar v. State, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2012 at about 01.30 p.m., when the victim girl was alone in the house doing homework, the accused/appellant trespassed into the house, bolted the door, undressed her and committed sexual assault on her. When the victim girl shouted, her neighbour Saraswathy came, the appellant fled away from there. Thereafter, the mother of the victim girl complained about the accused before the Inspector of Police, Athoor Police Station, and the Inspector of Police had taken the case for further investigation and on completion of investigation filed a final report by altering the charges 376 r/w 511 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C. to 376 r/w 511, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the statement of the victim has to be recorded immediately by the police officer, as per Section 24 of the said Act and further as per Section 27 of the said Act, the victim girl has to be produced before the Medical Officer for clinical examination, since the occurrence happened before one month of the Act came into force, the said procedures contemplated under Sections 24 and 27 of the said Act will not vitiate the case of the prosecution.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that on 07.10.2012, the father of the victim girl informed the said occurrence to the Village headmen and they assured him to take appropriate action against the accused and since no action has been taken by the Village headmen, the mother of the victim girl complained and the delay is not a conventional delay, which will not attribute against the defacto complainant. The testimony of the victim girl corroborated by the testimony of the mother of the victim girl has inspired confidence and also found trustworthy. The trial Court, rightly, reached the verdict of convicting the appellant/accused of the offences, under Sections 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and imposed the appropriate sentence and hence, prays for dismissal of this Criminal Appeal.

At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the wife of the appellant/accused passed away and the appellant/accused is now facing age-old ailments and is having one son, who is aged about 17 years and hence, prays for modification of sentence from the period of five years to three years.

Court’s Decision

Considering the above said facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, this Court is of the view that three years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs.3000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. But the quantum of the sentence imposed under the said section is modified as follows:

“The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) concurrently. In other aspects, the Judgment passed by the trial Court is confirmed.” is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author