The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence, finding that the prosecution evidence of witnesses did not establish a prima facie case for the relief sought.
Criminal miscellaneous petition stands 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.
Crl.M.P.No.1913 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.530 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the case on hand is a case of no evidence. But the evidence of P.W.2 speaks about the prior motive of the accused for the commission of offence.
(S.M.S.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 26.09.2024
ss
Page No.1/2
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
ss
Crl.M.P.No.1913 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.530 of 2023
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a prima facie case for suspension of sentence is made out based on the evidence submitted.
Petitioner/A2
State
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
A.D.MARIA CLETE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
