Madras High CourtCRL MP(MD)/7212/2020dismissed

Anthony Raj v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-12-23Honourable Mrs Justice R. Tharani3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Third day of December Two Thousand and Twenty PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI IN CRL A(MD) No.370 of 2020 ANTHONY RAJ ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALATTINPUDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

(IN CRIME NO.34/2013) ... 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 passed in judgment dated 16.10.2019 made in S.C.No.201/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, convicting the petitioner to undergo 3 years of RI for the offences u/s. 4 of TNPWH Act & 324 of IPC, till the disposal of the above Criminal Appeal. Prayer in CRL A(MD) No.370 of 2020:

To call for the records relating to the judgment dated 16.10.2019 made in S.C.No.201/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.A.MOHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.A.SARAVANA KUMAR, Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondent.

2. The petitioner filed this petition to suspend the sentence passed in judgment, dated 16.10.2019 made in S.C.No.201 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi.

1/3

3. 3.The case against the petitioner is that on 13.03.2013 at about 03.30 p.m., the petitioner waylaid the victim and misbehaved with her and also attacked her with knife. A case was registered against the petitioner under Section 376, 511, 506(ii) I.P.C @ Section 294(b) 324, 307 I.P.C. and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.34 of 2013 and the same was taken on file as Special S.C.No.201 of 2014 on the file of the Mahila Court, Thoothukudi and the Mahila Court found the petitioner guilty under Section 4 of Harassment of Women Act and under Section 324 I.PC. Under Section 4 of Harassment of Women Act, the Mahila Court convicted him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo a further period of six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 324 I.P.C.

, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred this Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.370 of 2020, along with the Appeal , the petitioner filed this petition for suspension of sentence.

4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is in custody for the past 14 months. No independent witness was examined. Medical witness was not in support of the prosecution. The Doctor has deposed that only nail marks were available. Hence, the punishment under Section 324 I.P.C is not valid. The villagers were not examined as witnesses. Having previous cases, is not a ground for dismissing the petition. There are much more points for argument in the Main Appeal and prayed the sentence to be suspended.

5. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.7) and marked 12 documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P12) and one Material Object (M.O.1). No witness was examined on the side of appellant / petitioner. No Exhibits were marked. Wound Certificate of the victim was marked as Ex.P6. Admitted portion of the confession statement was marked as EX.P9. P.W.1 has clearly deposed and supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.6 / Doctor corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The prosecution has proved the case beyond on all reasonable doubts and the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner. The petitioner is having 12 previous cases. History Sheet is maintained in H.S.No.10/2015 against him. The petitioner involved in a number of criminal cases including two murder in Andra Pradesh. The petitioner committed serious offence, which is against the Society. If the sentence suspended, there is every possibility of the accused to abscond and trial before the Andra Pradesh Court may be affected and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

6. It is seen that the petitioner is in custody for the past 14 months. At the same time, it is seen that the petitioner involved in ten previous cases, including four murder cases, one case under 2/3

Section 392 I.P.C. Out of the four murder cases, two murder cases are in Andra Pradesh State, in Crime Nos.33 and 40 of 2019.

7. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence at the present. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 23/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, (FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT), THOOTHUKUDI.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALATTINPUDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

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

ORDER

IN IN CRL A(MD) No.370 of 2020 Date :23/12/2020 LS JM/VR/SAR III/06.01.2021/3P/5C 3/3