Pradeepan P. V vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Pradeepan P. V vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2024

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
            Friday, the 3rd day of May 2024 / 13th Vaisakha, 1946
               CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.A NO. 1385 OF 2022
         SC 250/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HOSDURG, KASARGOD
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:

     PRADEEPAN P. V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O BALAN, MADAKKAL-HOUSE,
     VALIYAPARAMBU-GRAMAM, UDUMBANCHOLA-POST, KASARAGOD-DIST., PIN -
     671311

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

     STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE
     OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC
     PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA., PIN - 682031

     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the      sentence of conviction imposed
against the applicant/appellant in S.c. No.250 of 2021 dated 17.12.2022
in connection with crime No. 49/2021 of Chandera police station ,
Kasaragod District on the files of the Spl.Court (for the Trial opf
Offences under the Protection of Childreen from Sexual Offences Act,2012),
Hosdurg, Kasaragod by staying the further operation of the Judgement and
order and the Applicant/Appellant may kindly be released on bail by
imposing any condition.
     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR, K.P.PRASANTH,
VISHNU DILEEP, T.S.KRISHNENDU, ARCHANA SURESH, JINSON JACOB, Advocates for
the petitioner,and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court
passed the following:
                     P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
                    Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022
                               in
                Crl.Appeal No. 1385 of 2022
   -----------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2024


                             ORDER

The appellant filed this petition 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. He, therefore, seeks to suspend execution of the sentence.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objection opposing the petition. 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 grave. The learned Public Prosecutor accordingly seeks to dismiss the petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Crl.A.No.1385 of 2022

4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 6(1) r/w 5(l) and 6(1) r/w 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The term of sentence the petitioner has to undergo is imprisonment for 20 years. He has been in jail since 07.12.2022 on which date he was convicted.

5. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that on three days, i.e., 11.01.2021, 12.01.2021 and 13.01.2021 the victim girl, aged eight years, was playing at the house compound of the petitioner and while so, under the guise of helping her to climb down a mango tree, the petitioner had inserted his finger to her vagina and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. The trial court, 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. It is also contended that even on accepting the entire Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2022 in 3 Crl.A.No.1385 of 2022 prosecution evidence as true, no offence as defined in Section 3 of the PoCSO Act would not be constituted. When there is evidence to show that there were other disputes between the parties, the prosecution case could not be accepted, based only on the evidence of the victim. Having gone through the judgment and considered the available materials, prima facie, I am unable to agree with aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 17.12.2022. Although the contentions raised by the petitioner are not able to be accepted prima facie, the same require deeper consideration. In view of that that and other mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that execution of sentence can be suspended subject to conditions.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail by suspending execution of the sentence 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 Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2022 in 4 Crl.A.No.1385 of 2022 within one month;

ii) He shall not enter the local limits of Chandera Police Station 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.

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 dkr 03-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar