Sugumaran @ Sagu v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.07.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.M.P.No.13366 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.621 of 2019 Sugumaran @ Sagu

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

...Respondent

Crime, N-1, Royapuram Police Station, Chennai-600 013.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by order dated 07.01.2019 in S.C.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.C.V.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This petition is filed to suspend the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by order dated 07.01.2019 in S.C.No.122 of 2012 on the file of the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2011, the petitioner intercepted the de facto complainant (PW1), snatched his chain and when the de facto complainant (PW1) resisted, he cut him above his ear twice resulting in injuries to the de facto complainant (PW1). When the de facto complainant (PW1) fell, the accused snatched not only his gold chain, but also his mobile phone and fled. On these allegations, the accused faced trial in S.C.No.122 of 2012 before the XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and was convicted on 07.01.2019 and sentenced as follows:

S.No.

Provision under which convicted Sentence Section 341 IPC Fine of Rs.500/-.

Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

Section 394 r/w 397 IPC 3.

Challenging the above conviction and sentences, this petition has been filed and the petitioner is seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

4.

Mr.C.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the weapon was not recovered in this case and a case has been foisted on the petitioner.

5.

Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Madhan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the de facto complainant (PW1) had sustained injuries and was treated in the hospital for the injuries suffered by him. He also submitted that there are four previous cases pending against the petitioner.

6.

This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

7.

On a prima facie reading of the evidence, it is seen that while committing robbery, the petitioner has caused injuries to the de facto complainant (PW1), for which, the de facto complainant (PW1) had undergone medical treatment. Non-recovery of the weapon by itself will not vitiate the trial. These are all the aspects which are to be seen at the time of final disposal of the appeal. It is seen that there are four previous cases pending against the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this is not a fit case to grant suspension of sentence and bail.

As a result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed for the present.

-sd/- 20/07/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME, N-1, ROYAPURAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-13.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

C.C. to M/S. C.V.KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges Order in CRL MP.13366/2019 in CRL.A.No.621/2019 Date :20/07/2020 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format TA-06/08/2020