Farose Khan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fourth day of October Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU and The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN CRL MP(MD) No.5347 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.238 of 2016 FAROSE KHAN ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAIPATTINAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.
(IN CRIME NO. 27 OF 2013) ... 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 imposed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai in S.C.No. 82 of 2013 dated 28.11.2013 and enlarge the Appellant on bail pending disposal of the above said Crl.A.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S S.M.A. JINNAH, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.R.RAMACHANDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- (Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) The petitioner/appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.82 of 2013 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai. There were yet another accused by name, Syed Abuthahir. Both stood charged for offences under SEctions 120(b), 369, 394 r/w 302, 302, 201 r/w 114 IPC. By judgment dated 28.11.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused. So far as the present accused is concerned, the trial Court convicted him under Sections 120(b), 369, 394 r/w 302, 302 and 201 r/w 114 IPC.
The maximum sentence imposed on the petitioner is imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 394 r/w 302 IPC and another life sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. Pending appeal, he seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully.
3.This is a case, where an young child, aged about 21⁄2 years, was taken away by these two accused. The jewels owned by her, weighing about 53⁄4 sovereigns of gold jewels were stolen away and the child was killed and the dead body was put into a gunny bag and the same was thrown into a dust bin. The fact that when the gunny bag was thrown, it was noticed by three witnesses and when they opened the gunny bag out of suspicion, they found the child in the bag. It is also seen that they have also recovered the stolen properties and there is enormous evidence to prove that these two accused were mercilessly killed an young child, aged about 21⁄2 years to satisfy their greed for property. Thus, this is not at all a fit case for granting suspension of sentence. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 24/10/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE SESSIONS JDUGE, MAHILA COURT, PUDUKOTTAI.
2 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON,TRICHY.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTAIPATTINAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.
ORDER
IN CRL MP(MD) No.5347 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.238 of 2016 Date :24/10/2016 AM/SK SKN/SAR-1/02.11.2016/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/