Dismissed

Raman v. State Rep.by

Madras HC11 Feb 2021CRL MP/18064/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail. Rejecting the argument that the prosecution witness failed to identify the appellant during initial examination, the Court relied on the subsequent identification at cross-examination, finding it not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed. Main appeal listed for disposal.

Raman Vs State Rep.by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Thursday, the Eleventh day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.18064 of 2019

¶7

RAMAN [ APPELLANT / ACCUSED 4 ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAMATHI CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.A.No.839/2019 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed in the Judgment in order passed by Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal in S.C.No.123 of 2016 vide his order dated 21.08.2019 enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.839/2019.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in Crl.A.No.839/2019 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.DEEPAN UDAY, Advocate for the Petitioner and of MR.K.PRABAKAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH,J)

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners by judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.123 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal and to enlarge the petitioner on bail till the disposal of the appeal.

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner, who was the fourth accused in S.C.No.123 of 2016 before the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, were convicted and sentenced as follows on 21.08.2019:

¶16

Accused	Provision under which convicted	Senten	ce
	Section 364-A IPC	Life imprisonment Rs.2,000/-, in defaul years simple imprison	and fine t to undergo ment.	of four
Raman (A4)		Five years rigorous	imprisonment	and
	Section 394 IPC	fine of Rs.2,000/-, undergo fifteen imprisonment, each	in default months si	to mple

¶17

The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶18

Heard Mr.Deepan Uday, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Prabhakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant (PW1) had not identified the petitioner during trial.

¶19

On a perusal of the evidence of the de facto complainant (PW1), it is seen that he was examined-in-chief on 10.10.2017 and was not cross-examined on the same day. However, he was recalled two years later and was cross-examined on 08.08.2019, wherein, he has clearly identified the petitioner herein as person, who had stabbed him.

¶20

In such view of the matter, this is not a fit case to grant suspension of sentence to the petitioner.

¶21

In fine, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to call the records, prepare the typed set of papers and post the main appeal for disposal in the first week of March.

¶22

-sd/11/02/2021

¶23

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

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

TO
1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NAMAKKAL
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL JAIL, COIMBATORE.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PARAMATHI CIRCLE,
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
5 THE SECTION OFFICER,
CRIMINAL SECTION,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
C.C. to M/S.DEEPAN UDAY Advocate on payment of necessary charges
Order
in
CRL MP.18064/2019
in
CRL.A.839/2019
Date :11/02/2021
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
cs 16/02/2021

¶28

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

Raman v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman 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

V.Chithra Vs The State Rep by its

A.Shanmugapriya Vs the State Rep.by Its

Union Bank of india Vs The Deputy Director

P.Saravanan Vs State Rep. by

Raman Vs State Represented by

Balaji Vs State by Deputy Superintendent Fo Police