Alankarakumar @ Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Section of Law	Sentence of imprisonment	Fine amount
302 I.P.C.	To undergo life imprisonment	Rs.10,000/- i/d to under go six months rigorous imprisonment
307 I.P.C	Ten years rigorous imprisonment	Rs.10,000/- i/d to under go six months rigorous imprisonment
The	Sentences shall run concu	rrently

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that A1 and the deceased were building contractors. P.W.1 is an injured eye witness who was working as mason. There was some quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner regarding the non payment wages for construction of work and hence on 24.08.2017 at about 11.50 pm., the petitioner herein attacked the deceased and P.W.1 with sickle, due to which the the deceased died and P.W.1 sustained injuries . Hence the complaint.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

¶26

trial Court had failed to take into consideration the discrepancy with regard to the intimation about the occurrence to the police. Though P.W.1 is said to be the first

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

CRL MP(MD) No.6693 of 2024

¶30

person who gave a complaint, he in his cross-examination had admitted that the Inspector of Police had examined him only after two days and only during that time he was able to give full information about the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court, taking into consideration of the discrepancy in the evidence, has acquitted the second accused. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the wee hours and the medical evidence does not tally with the ocular evidence and there are other several arguable points. Therefore, he prayed for suspension of sentence.

¶31

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – Police, has filed a detailed counter and stated that P.W.1 is an injured witness and only based on the intimation from the hospital, the case has been registered. The infirmities pointed out by the petitioner does not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner and thereby he would vehemently oppose for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

CRL MP(MD) No.6693 of 2024

¶36

It is an application of suspension of sentence. We would not propose to delve deep into the evidence at this stage. The appeal is of the year 2023 and the petitioner is in prison for more than two years. Further the likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future is also not possible. Having gone through the records, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner.

¶37

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

¶39

ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure their identity.

¶40