The Madras High Court dismissed a petition to suspend the sentence of an appellant accused of murder pending the disposal of his appeal. The Court held that the judgment was recent, the offence was serious, and there were no changed circumstances to warrant relief.
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.
CRL MP(MD) No.868 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Two PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI CRL MP(MD) No.868 of 2022 in CRL A(MD)No.479 of 2021
NAGARAJ ... APPELLANT/ACCUSED
Vs
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL CITY, DINDIGUL.
CRIME NO.1025/2008. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.125/2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul and enlarge them on bail pending disposal of above Criminal Appeal.
PRAYER IN CRL A(MD) No.479 of 2021:
Pleased to call for the records relating to the judgment in S.C.No.125/2018 dated 21.10.2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul set aside the same and allow this appeal.
Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SUSI KUMAR.C, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.SANJAI GANDHI, Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order:-
This petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C.No.125 of 2018 dated 21.10.2021, till the disposal of the appeal.
2.The allegation against the petitioner is that on 01.12.2008, at about 03.00 a.m., in the early morning hours, with a motive against one Kannan, the petitioner committed the murder of one Karupaiah, who was sleeping in front of the shop of Kannan, falsely identifying him as Kannan. A case in Crime No.1025 of 2008 was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
CRL MP(MD) No.868 of 2022
registered against the petitioner. Later the case was taken on file as S.C.No.125 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The learned Judge found the petitioner guilty under Section 304(1) of IPC and altered the charge and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.479 of 2021. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9761 of 2021 for suspension of sentence and the same was dismissed by this Court, by an order dated 23.11.2021. Again the petitioner has filed the present petition for suspension of sentence pending disposal of the said appeal.
3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that the judgment is a recent one. The petitioner is in custody for the past 96 days. P.W.1 and deceased were close friends. The deceased came to the shop of P.W.1. There was no motive against the deceased. The recovery of weapons alone is insufficient to convict the petitioner. The wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. No enmity was proved. The recovery was not proved. The evidence of Medical Officer did not support the case of the prosecution. There were eight injuries on the body of the deceased, in which six were cut injuries and two were abrasions. There is no possibility of the six injuries to be caused by iron rod or axle blade. Some body robbed the deceased and murdered him and prayed the sentence to be suspended till the disposal of the appeal.
4.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the offence was altered into Section 304(1) of IPC. The evidence of P.W.1 is clear that the petitioner was available in the scene of the occurrence along with the deceased. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and marked 22 documents and 9 material objects and proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The judgment is a recent one and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
5.The allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature. The judgment is a recent one. Considering the grievous nature of the offence, the earlier petition was dismissed only on 23.11.2021. There is no change of circumstances. Considering the above situation, this Court is not entitled to grant suspension of sentence to the petitioner at the present stage. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
2/3
CRL MP(MD) No.868 of 2022
TO
SS/JM/SAR-II/31.01.2022 : 3P/5C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant suspension of sentence pending disposal of a criminal appeal given the recent judgment and grievous nature of the offence.
Whether the change of circumstances requires by finding that there was no change of circumstances since the earlier dismissal of the petition for suspension of sentence.
NAGARAJ
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH POLICE STATION DINDIGUL
R. THARANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
