Natarajan, S/O.Marimuthu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Sixth day of February Two Thousand Twenty PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.KRISHNAVALLI IN CRL A(MD) No.528 of 2019 NATARAJAN ... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY.

CRIME NO.20 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to Suspend the Sentence and Conviction made in the Judgment in Special S.C.No.36 of 2018 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 18/09/2019.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.V.SELVA, Advocate for the Appellant and of Mr.V.NEELAKANDAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial judge, for the alleged offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for the alleged offence under Section 506(i) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for the alleged offence under Section 313 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichirappalli. 2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

1/3

3.It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioner as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the prosecution case and he strongly opposed to grant suspension of sentence.

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

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that certain infirmities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in this criminal appeal and further the criminal appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

6.Accordingly, the suspension of sentence petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the appeal and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court daily twice i.e. at 10.30 a.m and 5.00 p.m pending appeal.

sd/- 26/02/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY.

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,TRICHY.

2/3

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. C.C. to M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.4255

ORDER

IN IN CRL A(MD) No.528 of 2019 Date :26/02/2020 VSD TK/PN/SAR.3/27.02.2020/3P/6C 3/3