Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant / Sole Accused in the judgment dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 08.10.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2016 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 341, 342 of IPC, under Sections 8 r/w7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, under Section 10 r/w 9(k),(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 6 r/w.5(l) (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 01:06:11 pm ) offences punishable under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 8 r/w.7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced him to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 10 r/w.9(k), (l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 6 r/w.5(l) (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. If the fine amounts are not paid by accused, he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment each concurrently. All sentences shall run concurrently.

7. After a full trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 341, 342 of IPC, Section 8 r/w. 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 10 r/w. 9(k), (l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 6 r/w.5(1) (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 342 of IPC and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 01:06:11 pm ) sentenced him to undergo five years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 8 r/w.7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced him to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 10 r/w.9(k), (l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 6 r/w.5(1) (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. If the fine amounts are not paid by the accused, he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment each concurrently, against which, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

44. We satisfied that the Prosecution in all probability, proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court after considering the evidence and materials held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 341, 342 of IPC and Sections 8 r/w. 7, 10 r/w. 9(k), (l) and 6 r/w.5(1) (m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and in the result he was convicted under Sections 363, 341, 342 of IPC and Sections 8 r/w. 7, 10 r/w. 9(k), (l) and 6 r/w.5(1) (m).

45.However upon examination, we find that there are certain errors in the framing of charges as well in the conviction, which necessitate reconsideration for the following reasons :

Firstly the accused was charged under Section 341 as well as 342 IPC for wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2025 01:06:11 pm ) prosecution established that the accused confined the victim girl in his residence and committed penetrative sexual assault which is not merely restraint but it is wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 342 IPC not additionally under Section 341, because Section 342 IPC is a specific and graver form of restraint which includes the element of Section 341 IPC, punishment under both Sections 341 and 342 IPC for the same act would amount to double punishment for the same offence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted from the offence under Section 341 IPC.