Partly allowed

Raja v. State Rep. by Its

Madras HC23 Sept 2019CRL MP/10602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court entertained a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an appellant accused under sections 449 and 302 IPC. Finding arguable points in the appeal, the court suspended the substantive imprisonment sentence subject to bond execution and periodic court appearance pending the appeal's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended on condition of executing a bond for 10,000/- with two sureties and appearing before the court monthly.

Raja Vs State Rep. by Its — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

and

¶7

The Hon`ble Mr Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

¶8

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.10602 of 2019

¶9

IN CRL.A.NO.155 of 2019 RAJA [APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ]

¶10

Vs STATE REP. BY ITS [ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEERANAM POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.176 OF 2015).

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶12

(i) To suspend the sentence passed in S.C.No.54 of 2016 vide Judgment dated 03.10.2018 on the file of the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal No.155/19.

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.OM SAI RAM, Advocate for the petitioner, and of MR.R.PRATHAP KUMAR (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

The petitioner has been arrayed as A2 along with A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC in S.C.No.54 of 2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The trial Court, by judgment dated 03.10.2018 convicted the petitioner and for the offence punishable under Sections 449 IPC, sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and for the offence under Section 302 IPC, sentenced to undergo life

¶16

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Seeking to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial Court, the present petition has been filed.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the motive has not been proved. P.W.7, who is the wife of the deceased has deposed against the case of the prosecution and thus in support of A1. The allegation that the petitioner is the lover of A1 is also not proved. A1, who is the daughter of the deceased has got her sentence suspended. P.W. 1, though the eye witness and being the brother of the deceased was having a civil dispute with the deceased and, therefore, the testimony ought not to have been accepted. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial Court will have to be suspended especially when nearly one year has elapsed.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that there are two eye witnesses in this case. P.W.3 is the neighbour, who also saw the occurrence. The motive has been established through the evidence of P.W.10 coupled with the recovery made. The trial Court considered this aspect while rendering the conviction. Hence, the petition will have to be dismissed.

¶19

Admittedly, A1 has got her sentence suspended by order dated 01.02.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.16869 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.653 of 2018. The case of the prosecution is that the offence has been committed by both the accused in furtherance to the common intention. The petitioner has been under incarceration for nearly one year. Thus, we do find arguable points available in the appeal particularly in the light of the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with the fact that the occurrence has taken place during the night time.

¶20

5.Considering the above coupled with the period of incarceration of the petitioner, we are inclined to suspend the sentence. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended on condition that the petitioner executes a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on the first working day of every month at 10.00 a.m., pending appeal.

¶21

-sd/23/09/2019

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.IV, SALEM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEERANAM POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. 5 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SALEM. 6 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM. +1 C.C. to M/S.OM SAI RAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.19737 Order in CRL MP.10602/2019 in CRL.A.NO.155/2019 Date :23/09/2019 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format TA-24/09/2019

¶26

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

Raja v. State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. State Rep. by Its

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

Arappuleeswaran, M/a 29 Yrs, Vs the District Superintendent

Vasanthi Vs the District Collector and

Anjala Vs the Director General of Prisons

Jeyaseeli Vs the State Rep.by

L.Chandra Vs State Rep.by

Kolanjinathan Vs the State Rep by Its