Allowed

Muthuvel @ Udayar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Sept 2017CRL MP(MD)/5825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, granted suspension of the petitioner's life sentence and imprisonment for offences under IPC 506, 307, and 302 pending the disposal of his criminal appeal, releasing him on bail.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended pending disposal of Criminal Appeal; petitioner released on bail upon executing bond with two sureties and appearing monthly.

Muthuvel @ Udayar Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Honble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH** and **The Honble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.5825 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.221 of 2017

¶6

MUTHUVEL @ UDAYAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY,

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶10

KADALADI (IN KADALADI POLICE STATION,

¶11

CRIME NO.78/2010) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to suspend the order of conviction imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Judge) Paramakudi made in S.C.No.1/2013 dated 19/06/2017 pending disposal of the above Crl.A

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.JEGANATHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH.J., )

¶15

This petition has been filed praying to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in Session Case No.1 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Judge), Paramakudi and also to enlarge him on bail.

¶16

2.The petitioner is arrayed as an accused No.1 in S.C.No.1 of 2013, wherein the petitioner has been found guilty under Section 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and he has been found guilty under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and he has been found guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Live https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

¶17

Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed seeking suspension of the sentence awarded.

¶18

3.The case of the prosecution is that in pursuant to the family dispute, the petitioner and other accused attacked the deceased and committed the alleged offence.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though P.Ws.1,2,4 & 6 are the eye witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 6 are turned hostile. P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that he has not seen the occurrence. Though the P.W.4 is an injured witness, there is no explanation getting admitted in the hospital on 02.10.2010 even though the occurrence took place on 23.09.2010. The alleged occurrence is also said to have taken place in front of the Tea shop of P.W.6.

¶20

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 4, the trial Court has rightly rendered the conviction and no interference is required.

¶21

6.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the P.Ws.1 & 6 are turned hostile. Insofar as the P.W.2 is concerned, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. Therefore, the only other evidence is that of P.W.4. Insofar as the P.W.4 is concerned, though he is an injured witness, there is no explanation for not taking the treatment on 23.09.2010.

¶22

7.Considering the above facts and taking note of the fact that there are some arguable points are involved in this criminal appeal and considering the period of incarceration undergone by him, we are inclined to grant suspension of the sentence.

¶23

In fine, this petition is ordered and the sentence imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.1 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Judge), Paramakudi is alone suspended till the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2017 and the petitioner will be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

¶28

1 THE ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, (FAST TRACK JUDGE), PARAMAKUDI.

¶29

2 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUDUKULATHUR.

¶30

3 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶31

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADALADI (IN KADALADI POLICE STATION).

¶32

6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. C.C. to M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.30131

¶34

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.5825 of 2017 IN

¶35

CRL A(MD) No.221 of 2017

¶36

Date :05/09/2017

¶37

MKV-PN-SAR 2/07.09.2017/3P-8C

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Muthuvel @ Udayar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuvel @ Udayar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ida Selvakumari Vs a.Roosewelt, S/O. Ambaiyan

Kali @ Kalidoss @ Kalirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Mayakrishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Gangadharan, Vs C.Maharani

Karthikeyan Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh @ Sureshkumar Vs the Inspector of Police