Kasi v. State
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence imposed on the petitioners/A1 to A4, is suspended on the following conditions:(i)The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Heard Mr.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel for the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022petitioners/A1 to A4 and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 5.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, who was aged about 72 years…
Judgment
Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.06.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/20221.Kasi2.Balamurugan3.Elumalai4.Seenu @ Seenuvasan.. Petitioners/A1 to A4VersusState by Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Cr.No.162/2007).. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer:-Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389[1] of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C.No.116 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, by judgment dated 03.03.2022, till the disposal of the above mentioned appeal. For Petitioners: Mr.John Sathyan, Sr. Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public ProsecutorORDER[Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN , J] This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners vide judgement and order dated 03.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.116 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, and to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the appeal.
The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4 in the above Sessions Case, were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows: Accused No.Offence under SectionSentence imposedA1, A3 and A4302 IPCEach of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.364 IPCEach of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.120 (B) IPCEach of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022rigorous imprisonment for two years.201 IPCEach of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.341 IPCEach of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.A2302 r/w 109 IPCTo undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.364 r/w 109 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.120 (B) IPCTo undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.201 r/w 109 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Appeal and they seek suspension of sentence and bail in the present petition.
Heard Mr.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel for the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022petitioners/A1 to A4 and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 5.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, who was aged about 72 years, had filed a case against the petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 for forging his signature and creating a false sale deed in respect of his lands; that when the case was posted for obtaining his specimen signature for comparison, the petitioners/accused decided to do away with the deceased; that on 28.04.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased had gone to a shop near Polur bus stand to buy newspapers and tender coconut and thereafter, he did not return and hence, a complaint was lodged by PW1, the son of the deceased. (ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioners along with the Approver-PW39, abducted the deceased in a Mahindra Van and took him to a culvert and the petitioners/accused caused his death by gagging his mouth and closing his nose, as a result of which, the deceased died; that with an intention to screen the offence, they took the body of the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022deceased and buried underneath the culvert; and that one week after the occurrence, the body was found, which could not be identified and after the skull was retained for identification, the body was buried.6.
(i) Mr.John Sathyan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A4 submitted that the prosecution rests on the evidence of the approver-PW39, PW24 and PW25, who speak about the 1st petitioner paying Rs.50,000/- for committing murder of the deceased and the recovery of watch and hearing-aid of the deceased on the confession of the petitioners/accused. He pointed out to the evidence of PW39 and submitted that he did not become an approver voluntarily and therefore, his evidence is highly doubtful. He also pointed out to the evidence of PW24 and PW25, who had admitted in the cross examination that they had identified the accused with the help of the police officers. (ii) The learned senior counsel further submitted that the recovery is also doubtful and cannot be taken as a circumstance against the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have a fair chance of success in the appeal.5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022(iii) The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners/accused are in custody from 03.03.2022 and since the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future, he prayed for suspension of sentence.
7. Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the investigation was originally done by the respondent police and thereafter, transferred to the CBCID; that the prosecution case is established through the evidence of approver-PW39, which is corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses; and that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition for suspension of sentence. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 9. (i) As regards the evidence of approver-PW39, it is seen from the 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022cross examination that he had admitted that he had earlier complained against the police that they tortured him and also admitted that he had agreed to become an approver after the police induced him by promising his release from the case.
We are therefore of the prima facie view that the evidence of the approver is doubtful. (ii) PW24 would state that he received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st petitioner/A1 for killing the deceased and since, he did not get proper henchmen, he could not carry out the assignment and returned the money received by him. However, in the cross examination, he had admitted that he identified A1, the 1st petitioner herein, after the CBCID police identified A1 to him, when he came to Court. (iii) PW26 who spoke about the deceased being taken in a van has not stated about this fact earlier and had stated this fact before the CBCID police one year after the occurrence. Hence, in view of above infirmities pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners/accused, we are 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022prima facie convinced that the petitioners have a fair chance of success in the appeal.
Operative part
10. Therefore, in view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody from 03.03.2022 and the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future, we are inclined to grant the relief of suspension of sentence to the petitioners herein.11. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence imposed on the petitioners/A1 to A4, is suspended on the following conditions:
(i)The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with two independent sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District;
(ii)The petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity;
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., until the disposal of the appeal and if they are not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, they shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of their absence, as directed by the trial Court.[M.S.R.,J.] [S.M.,J.] 27.06.2024 arsIssue order copy by 28.06.2024Upload the order copy forthwith.
Internet: Yes9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.MP.No.17426/2023 in Crl.A.No.1070/2022M.S.RAMESH, JandSUNDER MOHAN, JarsTo1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore. 4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104. Crl.MP.No.17426/2023in Crl.A.No.1070/202227.06.202410
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence imposed on the petitioners/A1 to A4, is suspended on the following conditions:(i)The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 317.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 27 Jun 2024. The bench was PRINCIPAL DISTRICT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.