Manoharan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand and Twenty PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM and The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice T.KRISHNAVALLI IN CRL A(MD) No.495 of 2019 MANOHARAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK No.1 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ODAIPATTI POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.59/2015) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence and conviction imposed by the Hon'ble Additional District Court (Fast Track), Theni in S.C.No.135/2016 dated 13.09.2019 against the petitioner and enlarges the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the main appeal.

Prayer in CRL A(MD). 495/ 2019 :

To call for the records and set aside the Judgment passed by the Learned Additional District Court(Fast Track), Theni in S.C.No.135/2016 dated 13.09.2019 and allows this appeal and acquits the Appellants/ Accused Nos.1 to 3.

Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.VANCHINATHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.R.ANANDHARAJ, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order:- [Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.] The petitioner herein has been arrayed as A1 in the Sessions Case No.135 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Theni.

1/5

2. There were totally three accused as per the charge sheet and they are brothers. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner (A1) are as follows:

Accused Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment 341 I.P.C.

To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) months.

A1 To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months.

302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

3. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner herein, namely, A1 has filed the above criminal appeal and during the pendency of the criminal appeal, he has filed the criminal miscellaneous petition for suspension of sentence.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased are neighbours. On 05.04.2015, Meena, who is the wife of the second accused, had blocked the drainage, which was running in front of their house. Due to which, there was an altercation between the said Meena and one Subburaj, who is the father of the deceased. Then, on 06.04.2015, at 07.15 a.m., when the deceased along with his brother Nagaraj were proceeding to attend the nature's call, the accused were standing near Easwaran Temple and the accused 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased Chinnaian, while A1 (petitioner herein) caused stab injury and Chinnaian succumbed to the injury. It is further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 and the accused were arrested on the same day at 15.30 hours and based on the confession statement of A1, M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of eye-witnesses and the evidence of P.W.19 / Investigating Officer, which would prove that the prosecution case is false. It is further submitted that during the course of cross-examination, P.Ws.4 and 7 have themselves admitted that they went to the scene of occurrence only after hearing the noise and they could not have seen the occurrence and the Investigating Officer admits that P.W.8 is not an eyewitness.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the earlier information given by P.W.1 has been suppressed and the F.I.R. (Ex.P9) was registered based on the second statement of P.W.1 and hence, the genesis of the case has been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, P.W.1 has deposed that A1 caused single injury on the deceased. But, the 2/5

Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P8) and the evidence of Dr.Shanmuga Priya (P.W.14), who conducted post-mortem, would show that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries. But, in her cross-examination, P.W.14 has deposed that there was no possibility for the accused to sustain these injuries, if single blow is caused on the deceased. According to the learned counsel, medical evidence is not supporting the prosecution case.

7. Per contra, Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts through the eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, who are the natural witnesses and the motive was also spoken by P.W.1. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the accused was rightly convicted by the Trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence and he is not entitled for suspension of sentence.

8. In the instant case, the first information, namely, complaint was given by P.W.1. In the chief-examination, she would depose that after the occurrence, her husband was taken to the Hospital. But, during the course of cross-examination, she stated that after the occurrence, first she went to the Police Station along with her husband, from there they went to the Hospital. As per the prosecution case, the accused were arrested on 06.04.2015 at 15.30 hours and based on the confession statement of A1, M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered. But, P.W.1, in her cross-examination, has categorically admitted that when she went to the Police Station, all the three accused were present in the Police Station and she also saw M.O.1-Knife. This statement of P.W.1 would disprove the case of the prosecution that the accused were arrested at 15.

30 hours in the presence of P.W.10 and in pursuance of the confession, M.O.1 was recovered. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, all the eye-witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased and according to the witnesses, A1 caused single blow on the deceased. But, the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P8) and the evidence of P.W.

9. Considering the above facts and also taking note of the overt act attributed to the petitioner, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions: i.

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.

3/5

ii.

The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Committal Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passbook to ensure their identity.

iii.

The petitioner shall stay at Pudukkottai and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

iv.

On any particular date, if the petitioner is not able to appear, leave is granted to him to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, on any other day, as determined by the said Court, in lieu of the day on which he would absent.

sd/- 21/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHAMAPALAYAM.

2. -DO- THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

3. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, PUDUKOTTAI.

4. -DO- THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI.

5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FAST TRACK), THENI.

4/5

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

7. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ODAIPATTI POLICE STATION,

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

+1. C.C. to M/S.S.VANCHINATHAN, Advocate (SR.No.8450 dated 22/12/2020)

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.6534 of 2020 IN CRL A(MD) No.495 of 2019 Date :21/12/2020 KRK SRS/PN/SAR-I/05.01.2021/5P/10C 5/5