The court dismissed a miscellaneous petition for suspension of sentence. It held that the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner had not made a prima facie case for the relief sought.
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.5179 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.258 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND
A.D.MARIA CLETE , J.
The petition filed for suspension of sentence is considered with reference to the evidence made available before this Court. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C given by the minor girl narrates the occurrence and the harassment inflicted on her. Victim girl was examined as PW1 and perusal of the evidence of PW1 and her expression made before the Court during examination, which was recorded by the Trial Court would be sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner has not made a prima facie case for grant of suspension of sentence.
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. List the appeal after two weeks.
(S.M.S., J.) (A.D.M.C., J.) 26.09.2024
gd
Petitioner
S.M.Subramaniam
Ad.Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
