Allowed

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan v. State, Represented by

Madras HC22 Dec 2020CRL MP/1679/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the imprisonment component of the petitioner's life sentence pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The court granted suspension on conditions of executing a surety bond and adhering to a curfew, noting the presence of arguable appeal grounds and the duration of incarceration.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment alone was suspended on condition of executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and reporting daily at 10.30 a.m. to the Town Police Station, Trichy.

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan Vs State, Represented by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.12.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

CRL MP No.1679 of 2020 in Crl.A No.83 of 2020

¶6

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan

¶7

State rep. by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, T-9, Pattabiram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶8

(Cr.No.55 of 2010)

¶9

Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr PC to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.273 of 2014 dated 31.10.2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶10

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent .. Mr.K.Prabhakar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J .]

¶13

The petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in S.C.No.273 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. By judgment dated 31.10.2019, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Seeking suspension of sentence, the present petition has been filed.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was a friend of one Sivakumar. The said Sivakumar was murdered by the group headed by one Anandaraj. Enraged over the same, the deceased murdered one Premkumar belonging to the group of Anandaraj. By way https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of retaliation and at the instance of Anandaraj, all the accused

¶15

joined together and committed the offence. A3 died pending trial. A4 was acquitted while A1 and A2 were convicted. As stated, the petitioner is arrayed as A1.

¶16

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even as per the version of the prosecution, all the accused as well as the deceased were fully drunk. The evidence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful. There are injuries found on the accused including the petitioner. The mother of the deceased could not have been the eye witness if one sees through the evidence of P.W.1 The petitioner has been under incarceration from 31.10.2019 onwards. There are arguable points available in the appeal. Therefore, the sentence will have to be suspended.

¶17

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the trial Court rightly relied upon the evidence of P.W 1 to P.W.18. The said evidence deals with the recovery made. It is a case of retaliation murder. The injury has also been explained by the prosecution. It is not as if in all cases where injuries are suffered by the accused the case of the prosecution would fall. Thus, considering the above, the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner and therefore, no interference is required.

¶18

5.The petitioner has been under incarceration from 31.10.2019 onwards. There is no other previous case in which the petitioner is stated to be involved. The co-accused namely, A4 has been acquitted. The petitioner also suffered injuries. The petitioner and the deceased were found to be under the control of alcohol which is also the case of the prosecution. Thus, considering the above, we do find that there are sufficient points available in the appeal to be agitated. This coupled with the period of incarceration make us to consider the case of the petitioner for granting suspension of sentence.

¶19

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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvallur and on further condition that he shall stay at Trichy and report before the Town Police Station, Trichy daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶20

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

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶23

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

¶24

TO
1 THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, THIRUVALLUR.
2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
NO.II, THIRUVALLUR.
3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
T-9, PATTABIRAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.
6 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,
TOWN POLICE STATION,
TRICHY.
C.C. to M/S. R.SANKARASUBBU Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
Order
in
CRL MP.1679/2020
in
CRL A.83/2020
Date :22/12/2020

¶25

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶26

TA-23/12/2020

¶27

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

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan v. State, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan @ Adhinarayanan v. State, Represented 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

Amsa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Anjammal Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

P.Rajathi Vs the Secretary to the Government

Bharathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Kathija Vs the Commissioner of Police

Arasaiye Vs the District Magistrate Cum Authorised Officer