Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Brief Facts of the Case

The accused (appellant) was tried by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. He was charged for the offences punishable u/s 7 r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The victim girl was the 5th standard student of 13 years. The Trial court convicted him u/s 7 of the POCSO Act & sentenced him for 3 years rigorous imprisonment also imposed the fine of rupees 1 lakh, by way of compensation to the victim, as per Rule 7(2) of the said Act. The accused challenged the judgment of the trial court & appealed to the HC to set aside the order of compensation of rupees 1 lakh. HC allowed the appeal & directed that the state shall pay the said amount to the victim girl on the accused’s behalf. And later the amount shall be recovered from him. The accused was dissatisfied with the HC order and appealed before the SC.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant  

The counsel appeared on the behalf of the accused and submitted that not enough chance was given to the accused before passing the impugned order and judgment. It was also contended that one of the witnesses i.e the mother of the victim became hostile and therefore the trial court has committed a mistake in convicting the accused. It was further submitted that as the trial court accepted the fact that there were lapses on the prosecution’s part, therefore the benefit of such doubt should be given to the accused.

Arguments one Behalf of the State

The counsel appeared on the behalf of the state that the appeal was disposed of after four days from the date of legal assistance provided to him. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that no enough chance was given to him to defend his case, before passing the aforesaid order.

It was also submitted that the trial court has not committed any mistake in pronouncing in its judgment and order against the accused by relying upon the disposition of the victim whose evidence was reliable. It was also submitted that she was properly cross-examined by the defence.   

Observation of the Court

The Supreme Court observed that according to the facts and & circumstances of the case, the trial court has not committed any mistake in convicting the accused, by relying upon the victim’s deposition. The trial Court was already lenient as it has imposed the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.    

The Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by stating that after considering the object & purpose of the said Act & the evidence on record, the HC has correctly convicted the accused of the offence punishable u/s 7 of the Act and has correctly sentenced him for 3 years rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence provided u/s 8 of the Act.

Click here for the full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -