Seelan @ Jeyaseelan vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2020

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

376(2).

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

2
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.

…………………………………….. J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

…………………………………….. J.
(NAVIN SINHA)

…………………………………….. J.
(K.M. JOSEPH)

New Delhi;

December 16, 2020.

3