Kerala High Court
P.M Abdul Majeed vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2023 IN CRL.A.NO.909 OF 2023
SC 207/2019 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, MATTANNUR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
P.M. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O. RAMZAN, MODAPRATH PUTHIYANDI HOUSE, VILAMANAAMSOM,
SANTHINAGHAR, VALLITHODE,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670703.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the
petitioner/appellant by the judgment of guilty of conviction and sentence
in S.C.No.207 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track Specail
court, Mattannur dated 31.05.2023 and release the petitioner/appellant on
bail, pending disposal of the above criminal appeal in the interests of
justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.V.ANOOP, PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP,
ANTONY THOMAS, ANJU R S., S.RAJEEV, Advocates for the petitioner and of
the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent,the court passed the following:
P.T.O.
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023
in
Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). The petitioner would contend that he is innocent and there is every chance for allowing the appeal and acquitting him. He was on bail during the trial of the case. In such circumstances, he claims that he is entitled to get execution of his sentence suspended.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor filed an objection on behalf of the respondent. It is contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had committed the offence alleged against him. The offence proved against the petitioner is grievous. On account of the offence he has committed, the victim boy, who was aged only 14 years at the time of occurrence, has been put to untold miseries and trauma. Considering the gravity of the 2 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023 offence and the tenure of the sentence imposed, the petitioner is not entitled to get an order to suspend the sentence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The term of sentence the petitioner has to undergo is imprisonment for 10 years.
5. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner subjected the victim boy to sexual assault on 06.06.2018 by taking him from the legal custody of his parents to a Sunni Centre. The petitioner had repeated similar acts of assault twice thereafter in the similar way. On 01.08.2018 the petitioner by threatening that his nude photo will be published, had took the victim from his native place at Kozhikode with a view to exploit him sexually. The trial court, 3 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023 believing the evidence tendered by the prosecution found the petitioner guilty as mentioned above.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there have been serious discrepancies in the evidence of the victim. Therefore, the conviction is based on unreliable and insufficient evidence, and the appeal will be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that not only that the petitioner has committed a serious crime against a boy of tender age, but also he intimidated the mother of the victim on a subsequent occasion for prosecuting this matter. It is thus submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is not entitled to get execution of the sentence suspended.
7. Having gone through the judgment and considered the available materials, prima facie, I am unable to agree with the contention that the findings leading to the conviction of the petitioner are wrong. It is true that the offence of sexual assault committed is appalling as stated by the trial court. However, the fact that the petitioner is aged 73 years now and 4 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023 he has been in jail since 31.05.2023, a lenient view in the matter of grant of bail by suspending the suspension of sentence can be taken. In the light of the fact that a prosecution case was initiated against the petitioner with the allegation that he intimated the mother of the victim, sufficient precaution to avoid recurring of any such instance is to be taken while granting bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:
i) He shall deposit entire fine amount in the trial court within one month;
ii) He shall not enter the local limits of Kannur Revenue District till the final disposal of this appeal;
iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence; and
iv) He shall not contact or try to intimidate the victim or witnesses examined in the case.5
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023 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. It is made clear that mere registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner by itself entails cancellation of this order.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr 12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar