Raju v. State Rep.by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a petition for suspension of sentence, finding no prima facie case as the eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 were corroborative and no doubt existed regarding the conviction. The concurrent criminal appeal was listed.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; Criminal Appeal listed after two weeks.
What the court decided
Crl.M.P.No.2041 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.1054 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND
A.D.MARIA CLETE , J.
The petition for suspension of sentence is examined with reference to the evidences of PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are the eye witnesses. PW2 turned hostile. PW1 is the son of the deceased and PW3 is the daughter of the deceased. Both were present at the scene of occurrence. The evidences of PW1 and PW3 are corroborative. We have gone through the medical evidences of PW12/Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination. 12 external injuries are identified. We have not found any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner for granting of suspension of sentence.
- Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. List Crl.A.No.1054 of 2023 after two weeks.
(S.M.S., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 26.09.2024
gd
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the evidences of eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 support a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
State
Coram
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court