Supreme Court of India
SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 16 December 2020
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1235
SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN
v.
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4206 of 2020
DECEMBER 16, 2020
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA ANDK. M. JOSEPH, JJ]
Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2) - Plea of petitioner that the chargewas under s.376(1) and not under s.376(2) - On facts, charge wasframed under s.376 which would include s.376(2) - There wasconcurrent finding of fact that the victim who was only six year oldwas raped by the petitioner - The evidence of victim and her motherwho was eye witness to the incident was on record - Special leavepetition dismissed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special LeavePetition (Criminal) No.4206 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.2019 of the High Courtof Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. RC (MD) No. 520 of2015.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., A. Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Shree PalSingh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Our order dated 04.12.2020, records:
“Having heard Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearingfor the petitioner for some time, when the Court pointed out thatunder Section 376(2)(f) the minimum punishment is 10 years,Mr. Basant pointed out that the charge was only under Section376(1) and not under Section 376(2).
This being the case, we allow Mr. Basant to produce the orderwhere charges have been framed.
List after one week.”
1235
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A2. We have since perused the charges that have been framed.The charge was not only under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code,as was sought to be argued by Mr. R. Basant, but was under Section376, which includes Section 376(2).
3. Be that as it may, we find that there is a concurrent finding ofBfact that the victim, who was only 6 years old, was raped by the petitioner.Quite apart from the victim’s testimony, there is also the testimony ofher mother,who was an eye witness to the incident.
4. It was found that the petitioner is over 18 years old and wasfound to be potent. His lungi was recovered and he himself absconded,Chaving been captured after 15 days of the incident. Both courts haverecorded the argument of the accused that he has only one hand, as aresult of which it would be physically impossible to have committed anact of rape. Both courts have dealt with this aspect of the case and weagree with them - there is no such impossibility. However, consideringthat the State has not filed an appeal and that the incident has takenDplace 20 years ago, we dismiss the special leave petition, without goinginto Section 376(2) and whether a case is made out on facts for reducingthe minimum punishment of 10 years.
5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
E
Devika Gujral
SLP dismissed.
F
G
H