Allowed

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Nov 2020CRL MP/809/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence pending appeal. Observing that thirteen witnesses turned hostile and the case required extensive hearings on substantive facts and law, the Court suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment, conditionally.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment was suspended on the petitioner executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and reporting once a month.

Saravanan Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.11.2020

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

CRL MP No.809 of 2020 in Crl.A No.42 of 2020

¶6

Saravanan ... Petitioner

¶7

vs State Rep by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Andimadam Police Station, Ariyalur District. Crime No.387 of 2017.

¶8

Petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence of conviction and imprisonment dated 25.11.2019 imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in S.C.No. 74 of 2018 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Lakshmi Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No. 74 of 2018 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur. The trial Court by judgment dated 25.11.2019 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Seeking suspension of sentence imposed, the present petition has been filed.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that 13 witnesses turned hostile. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested witnesses. There is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 with respect to the motive part. The case of the prosecution is that there is a property dispute between the deceased and the petitioner and it has not been proved. P.W.1 has also stated that the complaint https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been written by his relative. The said person has not been

¶14

examined. The recovery has not been proved. P.Ws.10 and 11 have deposed that signatures have been obtained from the petitioner in the police station where the material objects were already found in existence. Thus, considering the above and coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been under incarceration for nearly one year, the sentence will have to be suspended.

¶15

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that de hors the recovery of P.Ws 1 to 4 being the eye witnesses, spoke about the occurrence. P.W.1 also speaks about the weapon used. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.Ws. 11 and 12 also speak about the recovery. Therefore, the present petition will have to be dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner has been under incarceration for nearly one year. Of the witnesses, thirteen have turned hostile. We do find that there are certain points both on fact and law which are required to be dealt with in extenso at the time of hearing the appeal. Thus, taking into consideration the above said facts, we are inclined to suspend the sentence.

¶17

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 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the concerned Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. pending appeal.

¶18

-sd/03/11/2020

¶19

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

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ARIYALUR.

¶24

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶25

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANDIMADAM POLICE STATION, ARIYALUR DISTRICT.

¶26

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

¶27

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

¶28

+1 C.C. to M/S.A.E.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.7202

¶29

Order
in
CRL MP.809/2020
in
CRL A.42/2020
Date :03/11/2020
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
TA-04/11/2020

¶30

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

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. 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

Sugumar Vs the Secretary to the Government

Swaminathan Vs State Rep by

Durga Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.Pachaiyammal Vs the Home Secretary

S.Suganya Vs the Secretary to the Govt

S.Rajangam Vs Dr.S.Vijayakumar I.A.S.