Allowed

State by v. Suresh @ Palanivelu

Madras HC27 Aug 2020CRL OP/13199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted special leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to prosecute an appeal in a criminal matter where the trial court acquitted the accused of theft, cheating, and rape charges. The presence of prima facie material indicating misappreciation of evidence by the trial court was the basis for the grant.

What did the court decide?

Special leave to prosecute the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal was granted.

State by Vs Suresh @ Palanivelu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.08.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020
in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Kottucherry Police Station,
Karaikkal, through
The Public Prosecutor for
Pudhucherry. .. Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
Suresh @ Palanivelu,
S/o.Balusubramaniam,
No.49, Muthusamy Pillai Street,
Anna Nagar, Kottucherry,
Karaikkal. .. Respondent/Accused
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. to
grant special leave to prosecute the above appeal against the judgment and
order dated 09.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the
District and Sessions Court, Karaikkal.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.Bharatha Chakravarthy Public Prosecutor (Pudhucherry)

¶8

1/4

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶13

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent

¶14

will be referred to as the complainant and the accused, respectively.

¶15

The complainant initiated a prosecution in S.C.No.4 of 2016 before the District and Sessions Court, Karaikkal, for the offences under Sections 363, 420 and 376 IPC, against the accused. The Magistrate, by judgment and order dated 09.08.2019, acquitted the accused of the said charges. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the complainant is before this Court.

¶16

On reading the judgment and order of the trial Court, there is

¶17

prima facie material to show that the trial Court had fallen in error in acquitting the accused by mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Hence, leave granted.

¶18

The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if the same is

¶19

2/4

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020

otherwise in order.

27.08.2020

nsd

To
1. The District and Sessions Judge,
Karaikkal.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
Pudhucherry.

¶26

3/4

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020

¶29

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

¶30

nsd

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.13199 of 2020
in Crl.A.No.SR6200 of 2020
27.08.2020

¶32

4/4

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

State by v. Suresh @ Palanivelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by v. Suresh @ Palanivelu

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

S.Prabakaran Vs State by

Arumugam Sivalingam Vs State Rep.by

Rajiv Gandhi Vs the State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Sivakumar, Aged 44 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by Its

Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police