R.Suresh v. State Rep By

Crl.M.P.No.16098 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1146 of 2022 V.SIVAGNANAM,J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on him in S.C.No.19 of 2018 dated 19.07.2022 on the file of the learned XXIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been prosecuted by the respondent police in Crime No.1025 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police. He further contended that the witness to the confession is not reliable as well as the identification of the accused by the complainant. The complainant has seen the accused in the police station before the identification parade and thereafter when the identification parade was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the complainant has identified the accused as she has seen him before the respondent police. Hence seeks to suspend the sentence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the

materials on record.

4. On a perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai. The respondent police prosecuted this petitioner along with other accused persons for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 392 r/w.397, 506(ii) r/w.34 I.P.C. After the trial, the Trial Court on evaluating the evidence, found the petitioner guilty and imposed sentence as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 392 r/w.397 I.P.C.

Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.

Section 506(ii) r/w.34 I.P.C Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months Challenging the conviction and sentence slapped by the Trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. On a perusal of the evidence and deposition on the prosecution

side, it is noticed that the victim/complainant identified the accused person who robbed her house and when the respondent police conducted a general identification test before the Judicial Magistrate, prima facie the Trial Court found that the identification is recorded properly. Further it is noticed by the Court from the deposition of the victim/PW.1 Sulochana that the accused had already been identified by the victim at the time of robbery. I find no merit in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 27.02.2023 rpl

V.SIVAGNANAM, J., rpl Crl.M.P.No.16098 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1146 of 2022 27.02.2023