Allowed

Jeeva @ Jeevanatham v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC25 Nov 2022CRL MP/16757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court made absolute the interim suspension of sentence and bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.16757 and allowed both petitions, suspending sentences and granting bail to the petitioners, who were convicted under the SC/ST Act, subject to specific conditions including executing a bond with sureties and appearing before the trial court monthly.

What did the court decide?

Orders of interim suspension and bail made absolute; sentences suspended and bail granted to petitioners on conditions including bond execution, sureties, and monthly appearance before the trial court

Jeeva @ Jeevanatham Vs State Rep.by Its — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022

¶8

in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶9

Jeeva @ Jeevanantham .. Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.16757 of 2022 Jai @ Kathiravan .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crl.M.P.No.16759 of 2022

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.State represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai East Police Station Tiruvannamalai District (Crime No.247 of 2016)

¶12

.. Respondent/Complainant in both petitions

¶13

2.Jayavel .. Respondent/ de facto complainant in both petitions

¶14

Prayer in Crl.M.P.No.16757 of 2022: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to extend the interim suspension of sentence and bail granted to the petitioner on 25.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.6320 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/8

¶17

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶18

Prayer in Crl.M.P.No.16759 of 2022: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed in Spl.S.C.No.89 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Court, (Special Court for Trial of Cases Under Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Tiruvannamalai and to enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶19

For Petitioners in both petitions : Mr.V.R.Thangavel For R1 in both petitions : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶20

For R2 in both petitions : Mr.G.Mohan

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Made by P.N.PRAKASH , J. )

¶23

While the petition in Crl.M.P.No.16757 of 2022 has been filed to

¶24

extend the interim suspension of sentence and bail granted to Jeeva @ Jeevanantham (A2) on 25.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.6320 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021, the petition in Crl.M.P.No.16759 of 2022 has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on Jai @ Kathiravan (A1) by judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed in Spl.S.C.No.89 of 2019 on the file of

¶25

the Sessions Court, (Special Court for Trial of Cases Under Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for brevity “the SC/ST Act”]), Tiruvannamalai and to enlarge him on bail pending disposal of

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the above appeal.

¶27

2/8

¶28

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶29

¶30

The petitioners, who faced a prosecution in Spl.S.C.No.89 of

¶31

2019, along with the juveniles viz. Panchatcharam (A3) and Jeeanprabakaran

¶32

(A4), before the Sessions Court, (Special Court for Trial of Cases Under the

¶33

SC/ST Act), Tiruvannamalai, were convicted and sentenced as follows on

¶34

19.01.2021:

¶35

*S.No.*	*Provisions under* *which convicted*	*Sentence*
		Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
1	Section 120-B IPC	default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.
2	Section 3(2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.
3	Section 449 IPC	Five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
4	Section 392 IPC	Five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
5	Section 302 IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.
6	Section 201 IPC	Three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment.

¶36

The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶37

Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the accused have filed Crl.A.No.132 of 2021.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/8

¶40

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶41

¶42

Heard Mr.V.R.Thangavel, learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioners/accused, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/State and Mr.G.Mohan, learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant.

¶44

It is the case of the prosecution that Jeeva (A2) is a transgender and he is the brother of Jai (A1). Panchatcharam (A3) and Jeeanprabakaran (A4), who were juveniles, are the nephews of Jeeva (A2). The accused were neighbours of the deceased Krishnaveni. It is alleged that Krishnaveni was found dead in her house on 26.04.2016 with injuries and the ornaments worn by her were found missing. Therefore, the police registered a case against unknown accused. However, the petitioners, who were neighbours of Krishnaveni, were arrested based on an extrajudicial confession that is said to have been given by Jai (A1) to Rajadurai (PW7), Village Administrative Officer.

¶45

Strangely, none of the ornaments that is said to have been found

¶46

missing were recovered. M.Jayavel (PW1), who is an Advocate and brother

¶47

of Krishanveni, has stated that there was a pathway dispute between Krishnaveni and the accused.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

4/8

¶50

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶51

¶52

The petitioners have raised substantial grounds in the appeal,

¶53

which require detailed appraisal. It is seen that Jai (A1) has been in incarceration since 19.01.2021. That apart, it is also seen that Jeeva (A2) was granted interim suspension of sentence and bail by this Court on 25.08.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.6320 of 2022 on medical grounds and he continuous to be on bail, as his bail was being extended from time to time. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of interim suspension of sentence and bail dated 25.08.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6320 of 2022 qua Jeeva (A2) is made absolute. The petitioners are entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶54

Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petition stands

¶55

allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioners on the following conditions:

¶56

(i) Since the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.16757 of 2022 is in hospital and he is already on bail, he need not furnish fresh sureties and the surety bonds executed by him shall stand maintained;

¶57

(ii) The petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.16759 of 2022 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

5/8

¶60

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶61

satisfaction of the Sessions Court, (Special Court for Trial of Cases Under the SC/ST Act), Tiruvannamalai;

¶62

(iii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile number to ensure their identity;

¶63

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the appeal and if they are not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, they shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of their absence, as directed by the trial Court; and

¶64

(v) The petitioners shall not in any manner interfere with the proceedings against the two juvenile accused (AA3 and 4) before the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶65

(P.N.P.,J.) (G.C.S., J.) 25.11.2022

¶66

nsd

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

6/8

¶69

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶70

¶71

1.The Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases Under Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) Tiruvannamalai

¶72

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai East Police Station Tiruvannamalai District

¶73

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶74

4.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai – 600 104

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶76

7/8

¶77

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶78

nsd

¶79

P.N.PRAKASH, J. and G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶80

Crl.M.P.Nos.16757 & 16759 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.132 of 2021

¶81

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶82

25.11.2022

¶83

8/8

Jeeva @ Jeevanatham v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeva @ Jeevanatham v. State Rep.by Its

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

State Rep by Vs Udhaya @ Udhaya Kumar

T.K.Shankar Vs the Commissioner of Police

B.Mooventhan Vs the State Rep by Its

State Rep by Vs Natesan

Mrs. Kavitha Surana Vs Adjudicating Authority

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu