Lakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 438(1) B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence imposed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District in C.C No.121/2017 vide its judgment dated 07.11.2024 which was

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

CRL MP(MD) No.7914 of 2025

¶18

confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.105 of 2024 vide judgment, dated 02.04.2025 pending the disposal of the main criminal revision petition.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence imposed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District in C.C No.121/2017 vide its judgment dated 07.11.2024 which was confirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.105 of 2024 vide judgment, dated 02.04.2025 pending the disposal of the main criminal revision petition.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the defacto complainant and the accused persons, wordy quarrel arose between them. Thereafter, the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.91 of 2015.

¶22

The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has filed the final report against the accused under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act @ Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRL MP(MD) No.7914 of 2025

¶26

and the same was pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

During trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The accused has adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

¶28

The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed a judgment dated 07.11.2024 convicting the petitioner/2^nd accused for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment, Section 506(2) of IPC and sentenced her to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.105 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case along with the above miscellaneous petition.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

CRL MP(MD) No.7914 of 2025

¶33

are several infirmities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioners and hence, he strongly opposed to grant suspension of sentence.

¶35

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions putforth by either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that certain infirmities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in these criminal revision and further the criminal revision is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

¶37