Dismissed¶60

Murugan @ Naripaarai Murugan v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Oct 2025CRL MP(MD)/10350/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence refused; Section 430(1) BNSS; Section 415 BNSS appeal; conviction under Section 307 IPC (10 years simple imprisonment, fine Rs.50/-) and Section 506(2) IPC (two years simple imprisonment); S.C.No.838 of 2023; Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor; Crime No.143 of 2012; Palavoor Police Station, Tirunelveli; sickle attack and grievous injuries; FIR delay of 30 hours; judicial custody from 31.10.2023; gravity of charges; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; K. Murali Shankar J.; miscellaneous petition dismissed, appeal pending.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to suspend sentence pending disposal of the criminal appeal was rejected. ¶60

Murugan @ Naripaarai Murugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to suspend sentence pending disposal of the criminal appeal was rejected.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner (10 years simple imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and two years simple imprisonment under Section 506(2) IPC) should be suspended pending disposal of Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The other points/aspects canvassed by the petitioner side are matters for consideration in the main appeal and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be taken as grounds for granting suspension of sentence.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts, circumstances, the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner, the period of imprisonment imposed and the period of incarceration, the Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence at this point of time.

¶59

Key takeaways

Even assuming there is some delay in despatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Court, that by itself is not a ground to doubt the prosecution case.obiter¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 430(1) BNSS for suspension of sentence pending appeal — petitioner convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, in S.C.No.838 of 2023 (judgment dated 17.03.2025) for offences under Sections 307 and 506(2) IPC and sentenced to 10 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.50/- (in default three months simple imprisonment) and two years simple imprisonment respectively — occurrence of 05.08.2012, Crime No.143 of 2012, Palavoor Police Station — petitioner in judicial custody since 31.10.2023 — considering the gravity of the charges, the period of imprisonment and the period of incarceration, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court declined to suspend the sentence and dismissed the petition — observed that delay, if any, in despatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Court is by itself not a ground to doubt the prosecution case, and that the remaining contentions are matters for consideration in the main appeal.

¶1

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 07.10.2025

¶4

Delivered on : 17.10.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶7

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in

¶8

CRL A(MD) No.451 of 2025

¶9

Murugan @ Naripaarai Murugan

¶10

: Petitioner/A1

¶11

¶12

State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Palavoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.143 of 2012.

¶13

: Respondent

¶14

Prayer in CRL MP(MD).10350 of 2025 : This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S., praying to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, in S.C.No.838 of 2023, dated 17.03.2025, pending disposal of the above said criminal appeal.

¶15

Prayer in CRL A(MD).451 of 2025 : This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415 of B.N.S.S., praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment, dated 17.03.2025 in S.C.No.838 of 2023 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

1/10

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel, for Mr.K.Prabhu.

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.838 of 2023, dated 17.03.2025, till the disposal of the appeal.

¶23

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.2012 at about 20.30 hours, when P.W.1 came to his house after feeding the cows, the accused persons including the petitioner assembled there and abused the P.W.1 with dire consequences on the pretext that P.W.1 acted as informer to the respondent Police and attacked him with sickle and caused grievous injuries. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.143 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC against four persons including the petitioner.

¶24

2/10

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶27

The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report against two persons including the petitioner. After committal, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.838 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and subsequently, the same was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor. It is evident that the case as against the second accused Manikandan was ordered to be split up and the trial was proceeded as against the petitioner/first accused.

¶28

During trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The defence examined one witness as D.W.1 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5.

¶29

The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 17.03.2025 convicting the petitioner/A1 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also convicted him for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

¶30

3/10

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶33

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the first accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal along with the above miscellaneous petition for suspension of sentence.

¶34

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complainant in his complaint before the police had mentioned two named accused and two unknown persons involved in the occurrence, but while he was being examined by the Doctor, he had stated that three persons attacked him and that the above would go to sow that the defacto complainant himself was not definite as to who were involved in the alleged occurrence and how many persons caused injuries to him and that therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with a definite case.

¶35

7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the prosecution has not recovered the weapon allegedly used in the occurrence and that since the non recovery is fatal to the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the same. He would further submit that the First Information Report came to be received by the jurisdictional Magistrate with delay of 30.00 hours; that the prosecution has not offered any reason or

¶36

4/10

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶39

explanation for the said inordinate delay and that the nature of injury as alleged to have been caused by the appellant to the victim is also not fully explained by

¶40

the prosecution by producing X-ray and other medical documents.

¶41

He would further submit that the motive put forth by the prosecution is very flimsy; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that the complainant himself had admitted that he had affixed his thump impression in the complaint twice; that the evidence of P.W.6 Head Constable would go to show that the complaint is a fabricated one and according to him when he went to the hospital for getting complaint from the victim, he was admitted in ICU and despite the presence of so many Doctors, the statement was not taken in the presence of said Doctors and that the same would create a serious doubt in the way in which, the complaint was taken and that the learned trial Judge, without considering the above material aspects, has come to an erroneous decision that the petitioner is guilty for the offence charged against him.

¶42

9.The respondent has filed the counter affidavit raising serious objections. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there is no

¶43

5/10

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶46

delay in lodging the complaint and in sending the FIR to the concerned Court and even assuming that there was some delay, in the absence of any prejudice, the same cannot be taken as fatal to the prosecution; that P.W.1 has deposed about the

¶47

occurrence in tune with her complaint contentions, which came to be corroborated by the other witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5; that the evidence of the victim came to be corroborated by the Medical evidence from P.W.7; that there are no material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the contradictions canvassed by the petitioner are of trivial in nature and that the learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidence available on record has rightly convicted the petitioner.

¶48

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would further submit that the petitioner is having ten previous cases, which includes the murder cases.

¶49

As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) even assuming that there is some delay in despatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Court, that by itself is not a ground to doubt the prosecution case.

¶50

6/10

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶53

No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the complainant has lodged the complaint against two named and unnamed persons, but he had stated before the Medical Officer that he was attacked by three persons. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), according to the prosecution, after investigation, charge sheet was laid against two persons including the petitioner herein.

¶54

As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the other points/aspects now canvassed by the petitioner side are matter for consideration in the main appeal and by no stretch of imagination can be taken as ground for granting suspension of sentence.

¶55

No doubt, the petitioner is in judicial custody from 31.10.2023, but the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment on 17.03.2025, imposing ten years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC, sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

¶56

7/10

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

CRL MP(MD) No.10350 of 2025 in Crl.A.(MD)No.451 of 2025

¶59

Considering the above facts, circumstances and the gravity of the charges allegedly levelled and proved against the petitioner and taking note of the period of imprisonment and the period of incarceration, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence at this point of time.

¶60