Pradeep vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2024

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
          Tuesday, the 9th day of April 2024 / 20th Chaithra, 1946
                CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.608 OF 2024
         SC 685/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT VIII, ERNAKULAM
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:

     PRADEEP, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, OTTUPURACKAL VEEDU, CHERAI
     BHAGAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682501.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682031.
  2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH
     PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated
15.02.2024 against the appellant/5th accused in S.C.No.685/2004 on the
file of the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge - VIII, Ernakulam and
enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail, in the interest of justice.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, C.ANILKUMAR
(KALLESSERIL), Advocates for the petitioner and of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for the respondents,the court passed the following:




                                                                     P.T.O.
                    P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024;
  Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024;
  Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024;
  Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024;
                              and
  Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024
  -----------------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 09th day of April, 2024

                            ORDER

These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. They were convicted as per the judgment dated 15.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 447, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The longest period of sentence imposed commonly on the petitioners is 10 years.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to all the petitions. Grant of bail by suspending execution of the sentence is opposed on the ground that based on sufficient evidence the petitioners were convicted. Antecedents of the petitioners are also pointed out as a reason to dismiss these petitions.

Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024; and Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. One of the reasons pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the conviction is illegal since no de novo trial was held after impleading of accused Nos.14 to 17, among whom accused Nos.14 and 15 were convicted. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners commonly placed reliance on the decision of a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [2023 (1) SCC 289].

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat [1999 (4) SCC 421], in order to contend that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed term of sentence, his plea for suspension of execution of the sentence shall be considered liberally. The Appellate Court however, held further that in exceptional circumstances, the plea for suspension of sentence can be declined. In that view of the matter, sentence imposed on the petitioners can be suspended 3 Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024; Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024; and Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024 except insofar as the persons who have serious criminal antecedents.

7. The reason pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage and hold the conviction incorrect or illegal. But that contention requires serious consideration. The term of sentence imposed and the period that was taken to conclude the trial need reckoning. A pretty long period will be taken to hear and dispose of these appeals also. The criminal antecedents pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor are not sufficient to deny the benefit of Section 389(1) of the Code to the petitioners.

8. Taking all such aspects into account, these petitions are allowed. Sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended by each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:

i) They shall deposit entire fine amount in the trial court within one month;

ii) They shall not enter the local limits of North Paravur Police Station till the final disposal of this appeal;

iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any offence; and

iv) They shall not contact or try to intimidate the injured or other witnesses examined in the case.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply before this Court for cancellation of the suspension of sentence.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE SMF 09-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar