Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2020
Author: Rohinton Fali Nariman
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.4206 OF 2020 SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN …PETITIONER VERSUS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE …RESPONDENT ORDER
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. Our order dated 04.12.2020, records:
“Having heard Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner for some time, when the
Court pointed out that under Section 376(2)(f) the
minimum punishment is 10 years, Mr. Basant pointed
out that the charge was only under Section 376(1) and
not under Section 376(2).
This being the case, we allow Mr. Basant to produce
Signature Not Verified
the order where charges have been framed.
Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2020.12.16 16:19:32 IST Reason: List after one week.” 1
2. 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 Section 376, which includes Section
3. Be that as it may, we find that there is a concurrent
finding of fact 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 of her mother, who was
an eye witness to the incident.
4. It was found that the petitioner is over 18 years old
and was found to be potent. His lungi was recovered and he
himself absconded, having been captured after 15 days of
the incident. Both courts have recorded the argument of the
accused that he has only one hand, as a result of which it
would be physically impossible to have committed an act of
rape. Both courts have dealt with this aspect of the case and
we agree with them – there is no such impossibility. However,
considering that the State has not filed an appeal and that the
incident has taken place 20 years ago, we dismiss the special
leave petition, without going into Section 376(2) and whether
a case is made out on facts for reducing the minimum
punishment of 10 years.
5. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
December 16, 2020.