Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SEELAN @ JEYASEELAN versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Decided
16 December 2020
Judges listed
R.F. NARIMAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1235 · 2020 INSC 703

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 the order where charges have been framed. List after one week.”

p. 1235, margin F

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).

p. 1236, margin A

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.

p. 1236, margin A

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.

p. 1236, margin B

5

The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

p. 1236, margin D