High Court · 2025

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMACrl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024inCrl.A.(MD) No.677 of 2024RameshS/o.Kadarkaraiyandi No.569 Vathiyarvilai Krishnankoil. Petitioner(s) VsThe Inspector of PoliceVadasery Police Station Kanyakumari District. CrimeNo.271/2016. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.K. Althaf Sherifffor M/s. Ajmal AssociatesFor Respondent(s): Mr.S.RaviAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]Seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, vide Judgment dated 26.06.2024 inS.C.No.121 of 2017, he has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition.2. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under:Section of LawSentence ofimprisonment Fine amount302 I.P.C.To undergo lifeimprisonmentRs.5,000/- i/d to under gothree months simpleimprisonment3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sreekrishna Perumal wasan office bearer of the Narayanasamy Temple in Vathiyarvilai about five years priorto the incident, the first accused Ramesh assaulted Sreekrishna Perumal during thetemple festival leading to registration of the case in Cr.No.1305/2010 of VadaseryPolice Station, due to which, A1 Ramesh and his relatives including the secondaccused Jeyachandran had enmity with Sreekrishna Perumal. On 15.05.2016 at07.00 P.M., the said Ramesh and Jeyachandran were standing in front of the houseof the first accused Ramesh and were conspiring to commit the murder ofSreekrishna Perumal which was witnessed by Bhagavathy Selvan (P.W.4) andSridhar (P.W.3). In the course of the same transaction and pursuant to the saidcriminal conspiracy, on 16.05.2016 at 08.00 p.m., when the deceased Sreekrishna2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024Perumal along with his wife Seethalakshmi (P.W.2) and son Ashok Kumar (P.W.1)were standing in front of Sreekrishna Perumal's shop under a sodium vapour lamp,the first accused Ramesh brought an iron rod from the house of the second accusedJeyachandran and came towards them and abused Sreekrishna Perumal withobscene language and assaulted him with the iron rod on his head, right forearmand scapular region leading to bleeding injuries and fell down and suffered injuriesand was admitted in Muthu Neuro Centre, Chungankadai, where he succumbed tothe injuries on 17.05.2016. Hence the case.4. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trialCourt erred in believing the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Their presence at thescene of occurrence is highly doubtful. Though P.W.1 is said to have taken his fatherto the hospital immediately after the assault with bleeding injuries and that hisclothes were said to be stained with blood, the respondent police has not recoveredthe blood stained clothes. Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.11-Doctor andEx.P13 Accident Register, P.W.3 is the person, who is said to have admitted thedeceased in the hospital. Further, P.W.3 in his chief examination has not spokenabout the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence. Further, as perthe FIR, the petitioner is said to have inflicted two injuries with iron rod on the rightforearm and scapular region of the deceased, whereas the medical evidence3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024contradicts the same. The trial Court, has also failed to take into consideration theexaggerated version of P.W.1 before the Court. The trial Court having disbelievedthe evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 with regard to conspiracy and having acquitted theaccused No.2 ought to have acquitted the petitioner disbelieving the evidence ofP.W.1 and P.W.2 whose presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.Apart from that, there are several arguable points and the appeal is of year 2024 andthe petitioner is the custody from the date of judgment and the likelihood of theappeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future is also not possible andtherefore, he prayed for suspension of sentence. 5. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – Police, wouldvehemently oppose the application for suspension of sentence contending that thenon-recovery of the clothes of P.W.1 and his mother P.W.2 is a minor flaw and itwill not affect the case of the prosecution. P.W.1's evidence before the Court is clearand he has deposed about the manner in which the offence has been committed bythe petitioner. Admittedly, there had been a previous enmity between the petitionerand the deceased on accout of the deceased preventing entry of the petitioner intothe temple since he was under the influence of alcohol and due to the enmity, the4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024offence has been committed. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials availableon record.7. It is an application of suspension of sentence. We would not propose todelve deep into the evidence at this stage. Having gone through the records, we areof the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and thesubstantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein issuspended, subject to the following conditions:i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing abond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with twosureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left ThumbImpression in the surety bond and the Trial Court may obtain acopy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure theiridentity.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 2024iii. The petitioner shall stay at Chennai and report before the Inspectorof Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Near Broadway Bus Stop,Chennai daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.iv.It is made clear that the petitioner shall not enter into thejurisdictional limits of the respondent Police Station until furtherorders. sd/- 01/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / 02/07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. amTo1. The Principal Sessions Judge,Kanyakumari.2. The Judicial Magistrate No. II,Nagercoil.3. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.4. The Superintendent,Central Prison, Palayamkottai.5. The Inspector of Police,Vadasery Police Station,Kanyakumari District.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8362 of 20246. The Inspector of Police,Flower Bazaar Police Station,Near Broadway Bus Stop, Chennai.7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-7006[I] dated02/07/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.8362 of 2024INCrl.A.(MD) No.677 of 2024 Date :01/07/2025 HPS/02.07.2025 /7P/9C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7