Partly allowed

Sathyaraj v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC21 Dec 2020CRL MP/388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a press reference regarding a murder appeal, the High Court of Madras suspended the substantive sentence of life imprisonment on the accused for the offences of murder, attempt to murder, and fabricating false evidence, to enable them to pursue their appeal, subject to specific bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment on condition of bond with sureties and monthly reporting pending appeal.

Sathyaraj Vs the State Rep.by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.12.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

and

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶7

CRL MP No. 388 of 2020

¶8

in Crl.A No. 17 of 2020

¶9

1.Sathyaraj 2.Murugan

¶10

3.Satheeshkumar ... Petitioners

¶11

¶12

State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoal Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent

¶13

Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr PC to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No. 97 of 2015 dated 11.12.2019 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee and enlarge the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the appeal.

¶14

For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

¶15

For Respondent

¶16

.. Mr.K.Prabhakar,

¶17

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioners have been arrayed as accused/A1 to A3 in S.C.No. 97 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. They were accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 120(B) r/w 34, 201 r/w 34 IPC by judgment dated 11.12.2019. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w 34 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default, to undergo one month

¶21

rigorous imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC, the petitioners were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Seeking suspension of sentence, the present petition has been filed.

¶22

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of A2. A1 and A3 are the relatives of A2. Despite warning, the deceased did not mend his ways. Therefore, one of the accused took the deceased to the place of occurrence followed by others and committed the offence.

¶23

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The trial Court ought not to have accepted the evidence with respect to arrest, recovery and the last seen theory. The petitioners are under incarceration for nearly two years. The detention orders passed against them were subsequently quashed by this Court.

¶24

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the trial Court found the arrest and recovery to be correct. The witnesses also speak about seeing the deceased with the petitioners. The motive has also been proved as there was a prior quarrel between the parties.

¶25

5.The petitioners are under incarceration for nearly two years. It is a case of a circumstantial evidence. Thus, considering the above, we are of the view that there are arguable points available in the appeal coupled with the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners.

¶26

6.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended on condition that each of 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, Poonamallee and on further condition that they shall report before the concerned Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending appeal.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

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

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

TO
1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
THIRUVALLUR AT POONAMALLEE.
2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
POONAMALLEE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION]
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
PUZHAL, CHENNAI.
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
T4, MADURAVOYAL POLICE STATION,
CHENNAI.
6 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 C.C. to M/S.R.SANKARASUBBU Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.No.8515
Order
in
CRL MP.388/2020
in
CRL.A.17/2020
Date :21/12/2020
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
cs 22/12/2020

¶33

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

Sathyaraj v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyaraj v. the State Rep.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

J.Naseema Vs the Secretary to Governement

Ellammal Vs Government of Tamilnadu

V.Kalpana Vs Secretary Chennai

Amsa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

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

P.Rajathi Vs the Secretary to the Government