M.ChinnapandiS/o. Murugan @ Vai.Ko.Murugan v. Murugan @ Vai.Go.MuruganS/o. Chinnapandi Thevar & Ors.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 24.01.2025Pronounced on : 31.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICRL MP(MD) NOS. 845 and 846 of 2025inCrl.R.C(MD)Nos.992 and 1010 of 2024M.ChinnapandiS/o. Murugan @ Vai. Ko.Murugan, No.198, Ayyan Kovil Street, Marukalakurichi, Tirunelveli District. ....Petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD)No.845 of 2025 1. Murugan @ Vai. Go.MuruganS/o. Chinnapandi Thevar, Anna Salai Main Road, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.

SelvamS/o.Murugan @ Vai. Go.Murugan, Anna Salai Main Road, Naguneri, Tirunelveli District. ....Petitioners in Crl.M.P(MD)No.846 of 2025 Vs.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.127 of 2008. ...Respondent in both Crl.M.Ps.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioners: Mr. R.Anand in Crl.M.P(MD)No.845 of 2025 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi in Crl.M.P(MD)No.846 of 2025 For Respondent: Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) in both Crl.M.PsCOMMON ORDERThe petitioners have filed these respective petitions to enlarge them on bail by suspending the sentence imposed on them in conviction judgment, dated 15.09.2016made in S.C.No.243 of 2011 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyoor, which was confirmed and modified the sentence by the learned IIIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 by judgment, dated 28.08.2024, till the disposal of the Criminal Revision Cases.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case: The petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD)No.845 of 2025 in Crl.R.C(MD) No.992 of 2024 is Accused No.2 in S.C.No.243 of 2011 on the file of the learned Assistant SessionsJudge, Valliyoor. The petitioners in Crl.M.P(MD)No.846 of 2025 are Accused Nos.1and 3 in that case. The petitioners were found guilty of charges U/s.452 and 307 of2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for aperiod of 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default, to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each U/s.452 of IPC; they were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo RigorousImprisonment for a period of two years each U/s.307 of IPC, directing the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently as per judgment, dated 15.09.2016 passed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the conviction judgment, the petitioners have preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. The said Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 was partly allowed by judgment, dated28.08.2024, confirming the conviction and fine amount, however modifying the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years each and to pay afine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1month each U/s.452 of IPC and to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for aperiod of 1 month each U/s.307 of IPC. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Challenging the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016, the petitioners have preferred the respective main Criminal Revisions before this Court. Along with the Criminal Revisions, the petitioners have filed these petitions seeking suspension of sentence and for bail till the disposal of the criminal revisions.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent and perused the records in these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions.

The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are contradictory to each other. The Courts below have considered only the chief examination of witnesses and their cross examinations were not considered. The alleged occurrence took place at 1.30 p.m., but the complaint was recorded at 3.15 p.m., the delay was not explained by the prosecution. Moreover, the writer of F.I.R. was not examined on the prosecution side. Their evidences are uncorroborated. The petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD)No.845 of 2025 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.992 of 2024 is Accused No.2, who is practicing advocate. F.I.R. was registered at 3.30 p.m., whereas P.W.4 deposed as it was registered at 7.30 p.m. The Courts below have not considered all these aspects.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis There are number of arguable points in these revisions. The petitioners have a fairchance of success in these criminal revisions. The learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that this is the second petition and already the petitioners filedCrl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10936 and 11223 of 2024 and the same were dismissed on18.12.2024. After dismissal of the petitions, the petitioners surrendered before the trial Court and they are in custody from 20.12.2024. Therefore, the learned counsels prays for suspension of sentence till the disposal of these criminal revisions and the petitioners may be released on bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that this is the second petition and already the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.10936 and 11223 of 2024 and the same were dismissed on 18.12.2024. Hewould further submit that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioners and prays for dismissal of this petition.

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

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that certain infirmities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in this criminal revision and further the criminal revision is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future. After dismissal of earlier petitions for suspension of sentence, the petitioners surrendered before the trial Court and they are in custody from20.12.2024. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.