Shibu T.T vs The State Of Kerala

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5354 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2022

Kerala High Court
Shibu T.T vs The State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2022
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                      &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
            Friday, the 20th day of May 2022 / 30th Vaisakha, 1944
                CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2019 IN CRL.A NO. 1302 OF 2019

            CRIME NO.518/2014 OF Karimannoor Police Station, Idukki

      S.C NO.248/2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,THODUPUZHA.

                        (SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT)

PETITIONER/APPELLANT

     SHIBU T.T., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN, THOMBALADIYIL HOUSE,
     THANNITHODU KARA, THANNITHODU BHAGOM, THANNITHODU VILLAGE,
     PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

  1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
  2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, KALIYAR, IDUKKI
     DISTRICT-685 582.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed as per Judgment
dated 31/10/2019 in S.C.No.248/2015 on the files of the Special court
under POCSO Act, Thodupuzha in Crime No.518/2014 of Karimannoor Police
Station, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.




     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SRI.E.C.POULOSE, SMT.BOBBY
RAPHEAL.C, Advocates for the petitioner and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondents, the court passed the following:




    p.t.o
        K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
        ------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.A No.1 of 2019
                           in
              Crl.Appeal No.1302 of 2019
        -------------------------------------
         Dated this the 20th day of May, 2022

                                 O R D E R

Jayachandran, J.

1. The petitioner/appellant is the sole accused in S.C No.248/2015 of the Additional Sessions Court-I (Special Court under POCSO Act), Thodupuzha. He stood convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and (n) of the Penal Code, as also, under Sections 5(l) and (m), read with 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine.

2. In the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the petitioner seeks temporary suspension of the order of sentence and his release on interim bail, on the premise that Smt.Leela Madhavan, the sister of petitioner's father, is critically ill, wherefore, the petitioner wants to see her before her death. Annexure-2 medical certificate is produced to support the medical condition of the said Leela Madhavan. The petitioner would aver that he was Crl.MA 1/19 in Crl.Appeal 1302/2019 2 abandoned by his biological mother in his tender age and was looked after by the said Leela Madhavan as her own son.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Ambika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for Atrocities against Woman and Child. Perused the records.

4. This application is seriously opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader, by pointing out that a 10 year old girl was raped by the petitioner continuously for a period of 1 ½ years.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are not inclined to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Application. Primarily, we note that the one, who is stated to be critically ill, is not the petitioner's mother, but his aunt. We also note the gravity of the offence alleged, as pointed out by Smt.S.Abmika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader. The allegation is that Crl.MA 1/19 in Crl.Appeal 1302/2019 3 the petitioner committed rape on a minor girl, aged 10 years, for a period of more than one year. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault is alleged during the above period, going by the prosecution allegation. The petitioner was found guilty of the offences alleged and he is undergoing life term. In the backdrop of the above facts, we are not convinced of the sufficiency of the reasons stated by the petitioner in seeking interim bail.

6. In the circumstances, this Criminal M.A would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE jg 20-05-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar