Dismissed

Mani @ Surya @ Manikandan v. the State by

Madras HC29 Mar 2016CRL MP/2859/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for suspension of sentence filed by appellants convicted of murder and robbery. Upholding the trial court's conviction based on eyewitness accounts and recovery of stolen property, the court held that stray admissions of deliberation by a witness did not justify suspending the maximum life sentence.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed.

Mani @ Surya @ Manikandan Vs the State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

Crl.MP.No.2859/2016 in Crl.A.No.617/2015

¶3

M.JAICHANDREN, J. AND S.NAGAMUTHU, J.,

¶4

[Order of the Court made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.,]

¶5

The petitioners/appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in SC.NO.25/2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandaram, Fast Track Court, Erode District. By judgment dated 17.08.2015, the Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 for the offences u/s.460, 394 and 302 read with 107 IPC and convicted A3 for the offences u/s.460, 394 and 302 IPC and the maximum sentence imposed upon them is imprisonment for life. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the above appeal. Pending appeal, they seek for suspension of sentence.

¶6

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully.

¶7

3 This is a case based on the eyewitness account of P.Ws.1 to 3, who have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. The prosecution also relies on the recovery of two bangles from A1 and A2 on their disclosure statements, which were worn by the deceased. Learned counsel would however submit that the accused were not already known to P.Ws.1 to 3 ; but in the FIR itself, their names do find place. He would further take us through the cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein, P.W.1 has admitted that before going to the Police Station for preferring complaint, he had a deliberation with his relatives.

¶8

¶9

M.JAICHANDREN, J., AND S.NAGAMUTHU, J., AP

¶10

4 We have considered the submissions.

¶11

5 In our considered view, the above said stray answer elicited in the

¶12

cross-examination that P.W.1 had deliberation with his relatives, cannot be given literal

¶13

meaning to say that they deliberated upon the names of the accused and thus, preferred the complaint. P.W.1 explained that at the time when the occurrence had taken place, the names came to light because the accused called among themselves by name. At any rate, there is very strong evidence in respect of the recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused. Going by the nature of offence said to have been committed and all the other materials available on record, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case to suspend the sentence of the accused/petitioners.

¶14

6 Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶15

¶16

Crl.MP.No.2859/2016 in Crl.A.No.617/2015

Mani @ Surya @ Manikandan v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani @ Surya @ Manikandan v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagalakshmi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Thiru. Thakkalipondan @ Vs the District Collector and

Rani Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Kumutharani Vs the State Rep. by

Akash Mohamed Khan Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Nataraj Vs State