Apex court suspends sentence of son of orphanage manager convicted for sexually assaulting minors

The Panvel sessions court in March 2020 convicted and sentenced two sons of the orphanage’s manager, including Christian Rajendran and Joy Rajendran, to rigorous imprisonment of 14 and 10 years, respectively.

Appellant Joy Rajendran was found guilty of offences under Indian Penal Code sections 377 (imprisonment for life), 506-II (punishment for criminal intimidation), 354A (shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment), and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna on January 13 passed an order in the Special Leave Petition filed by Joy, challenging the Bombay HC order that had rejected the application filed by him, argued through advocate Sana Raees Khan seeking suspension of sentence and bail grant of during the pendency of the criminal appeal filed by him in 2021.

Khan submitted that the appellant was behind bars for nearly eight years since his arrest in 2015 and he will be completing his 10-year imprisonment shortly and his appeal, whis not likely to be heard soon before HC will be rendered infructuous.

Khan said that Joy was an 18-year-old student when he was arrested and he has been incarcerated ever since, and prolonged Incarceration pending his appeal against the same is violative of his constitutional right, therefore he be granted relief and be released on bail and his sentence be suspended.

A single-judge bench of Justice Prakash D Naik of the HC had observed that the victims were helpless minor girls. The HC had expressed surprise as to ‘why the accused was not booked under the offence of rape’, and therefore, no bail could be granted to him. Rajendran approached SC against the HC order. The SC noted that it is not in dispute that the ‘appellant stands convicted and sentenced to effectively 10 years of imprisonment’.

It further noted, “It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone a sentence of over 8 years out of 10 years. In such circumstances, we would think that denial of interim relief would result in the appeal being pending and the sentence being undergone, even though there is no prospect of the appeal being heard.”

The Apex Court went on to hold , “We would think that, in the circumstances, interest of justice do require that the sentence must be suspended and he should be released on bail. The appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the appellant shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be fixed by the trial Court.”