Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal. Appeal listed for final hearing due to 8-year incarceration duration despite denial of immediate bail.
Petition dismissed; appeal listed for final hearing on 23.04.2019.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. SATHYANARAYANAN
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.13643 of 2017
IN CRL.A.NO.697 of 2017
MUTHAN @ MUTHUSAMY, [ ACCUSED/APPELLANT ]
Vs
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY [ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAINATHU KADAVU POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. CR.NO.357 OF 2009
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to
(i) To suspend the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellant herein by the Learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.65 of 2010 dated 25.06.2010 and release the petitioner herein on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.697 of 2017.
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.PHILIP RAVINDRAN JESUDOSS, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.R.PRATHAP KUMAR (ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
The petitioner / appellant is the sole accused in SC.No.65/2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and vide judgment dated 25.06.2010, he was convicted for the offences u/s.302 and 309 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default sentence of 3 years simple imprisonment for the commission of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- with a default sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment for the commission of the offence u/s.309 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and set off was also granted u/s.428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the the petitioner/appellant preferred the present appeal and pending disposal of the appeal, came forward to file the present miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of substantive sentences of imprisonment.
2 The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would submit that though P.Ws.1 and 2 said to have been the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, there are material contradictions between the testimonies of the said witnesses and that apart, admittedly, the petitioner/appellant himself has sustained grievous injuries and the same has not been explained by the prosecution. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant the date of occurrence was on 03.08.2009 and the conviction and sentence was passed on 25.06.2010 and the appeal came to be filed belatedly in the year 2017 through Legal Aid and therefore, made an alternate plea to have the early hearing and disposal of the criminal appeal.
3 Per contra, Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses corroborate with each other on all material particulars and as regards the injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant, P.W.1 has given an explanation and the scientific and other evidences had supported the case of the prosecution and would contend that it is not a fit case wherein this Court can grant the relief of suspension of substantive sentences of imprisonment and prays for dismissal of this petition.
4 The Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before it.
5 A perusal of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and the impugned judgment would prima facie disclose that the motive aspect has been spoken to by the sons and daughter of the deceased, viz., P.Ws.4 to 6 and that apart, the eyewitnesses to the occurrence were P.W.1-sister of the deceased and P.W.2-husband of P.W.1 and P.W.1 had specifically stated that after committing the offence, the petitioner/appellant made an attempt to commit suicide by stabbing on his own. In the considered opinion of the Court, the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, would revolve around adjudication of disputed questions of fact and that can be appreciated only at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
6 Therefore, this is not a fit case wherein in suspension of substantive sentences of imprisonment can be granted. In the result, the petition stands dismissed . However, taking into consideration of the fact that the impugned judgment came to be passed as early as on 25.06.2010 and the petitioner/appellant is in incarceration for nearly 8 years as a convict, this Court directs the Registry to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prepare the typed set of documents/papers and list the criminal
appeal for final hearing on 23.04.2019.
-sd/28/03/2019
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE FIRST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KAINATHU KADAVU POLICE STATION,
COIMBATORE DISTRICT.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.
C.C. to M/S.PHILIP RAVINDRAN JESUDOSS Advocate on payment of
necessary charges
Order
in
CRL MP.13643/2017
in
CRL.A.NO.697/2017
Date :28/03/2019
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
TA-08/04/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the substantive sentences of imprisonment should be suspended pending the disposal of the criminal appeal.
Whether the contradictions in eyewitness testimony and unexplained injuries justify granting bail on suspension of sentence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MUTHAN @ MUTHUSAMY
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
M. SATHYANARAYANAN
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
