Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of life sentence and bail. Court dismissed the petition, holding that suspension of sentence in serious murder cases is an exception and not permissible at this stage.
Petition for suspension of sentence and bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH
and
The Hon`ble Mrs Justice R. HEMALATHA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.4237 of 2021
IN CRL.A.No.547 of 2020
MANOHARAN MOHANA [PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT]
Vs
STATE BY [RESPONDENT] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-15, RATHINAPURI POLICE STATION, CR.NO.2652/2011 AND PODANUR POLICE STATION, CR.NO.1303/2013, COIMBATORE.
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to
(i) To suspend the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner in S.C.No.312 of 2015 on the file of the Learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore by Judgment dated 30.11.2020 while convicting the petitioner and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.547/2020.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.GOPALAKRISHNA LAKSHMANA RAJU, Senior Counsel Assisted BY MR.R.RADHA PANDIAN, Advocate for the petitioner, and of M/S.R.MUNIYAPPARAJ, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-
[Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J.]
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 30.11.2020 passed in S.C.No.312 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.
2.The petitioner is the accused 2 in S.C.No.312 of 2015 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and was convicted and sentenced as follows:
| S.No. | Rank of the accused |
Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | A2 | U/s. 120 (B) IPC | Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. |
| U/s.302 r/w. 109 IPC | Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. |
||
| U/s. 420 IPC r/w. 109 IPC |
Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to |
||
| pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple |
|||
| imprisonment for one month. |
The Learned District and Sessions Judge, further directed that the sentence shall run concurrently and the sentence already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed Crl.A.No.547 of 2020 with the present petition for suspension of sentence and bail.
4.1 The case of the prosecution was that A1 to A3 conspired to eliminate the deceased Ammasai, W/o. Marimuthu, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore, who was a client of the advocate couple, and to create false records so as to show that the dead person was A2, the petitioner, so that it would enable the closure of the criminal case against A2 in the State of Odisha. A1 and A3 strangulated the victim Ammasai at the office and shifted the dead body to the residence of A1 and with the help of unscrupulous elements, manipulated the records to show that the deceased was A2 and that the death was a natural one. With the manipulated false records, they were even able to cremate the deceased Ammasai and managed to get a death certificate in the name of A2. Parallely, Sakunthala Devi (P.W.1), the daughter of the deceased, along with her husband P.W.2, Adi Ganesan found her victim mother missing and after a frantic search, lodged a complaint that her mother was missing. P.W.1 had compelling reasons to believe that her mother who had strained relationship with her father and also being the owner of 6.5 acres of land going missing was suspicious in nature. The police, investigating the missing person's case, stumbled upon the case of "A2's death" and a deeper probe into it revealed the facts which were already narrated above.
relief of suspension of sentence especially in the light of inherent weakness in the case of prosecution.
“30........... In the above cases, it has been observed that once a person has been convicted, normally, an appellate court will proceed on the basis that such person is guilty. It is no doubt true that even thereafter, it is open to the appellate court to suspend the sentence in a given case by recording reasons. But it is well settled, as observed in Vijay Kumar [(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195 : JT 2002 Supp (1) SC 60] that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of
murder, etc. It has also been observed in some of the cases that normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.”
-sd/-
28/01/2022
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO
1 THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COIMBATORE.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-15, RATHINAPURI POLICE STATION, COIMBATOER.
3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE PODANUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.
C.C. to M/S. B.MOHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges
Order in CRL MP.4237/2021 in CRL A.547/2020
Date :28/01/2022 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
TA-31/01/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail should be allowed for the petitioner convicted of murder in a serious criminal appeal.
Whether the petitioner's plea of guilt weakens are sufficient to grant bail pending disposal of appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶31
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Kashmira Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶32
Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab
Vijay KumarReferred¶32
Vijay Kumar [(2002) 9 SCC 364] · Who else cites this
MANOHARAN MOHANA
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
P. N. PRAKASH
R. HEMALATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P. N. PRAKASH and R. HEMALATHA
Parties & counsel
