GANESAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(SC)-2020-10-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 14,2020

GANESAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GOVIND BURLA PUNGATI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-328] [REFERRED TO]
LALBIAKMUANA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAJIT ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
SH. LALRAMTHANGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM CHANDRAKANT KHAIRNAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-12-245] [REFERRED TO]
MANI BALAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. JIGMEE BHUTIA [LAWS(SIK)-2021-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SINGH KANDARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGU KOKRE VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
N. BEILYTU VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT RAJBANSHI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA MOHAMMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-152] [REFERRED TO]
MUSTAKEEM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK MAJHI @ SOREN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT KUMAR JHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018, the appellant - original accused has preferred the present appeal.
(3.)That the appellant herein - original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act"). That relying upon the deposition of PW3- victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial Court also passed an order to pay rupees one lakh to the victim girl, by way of compensation, under Rule 7(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.