Sameer V vs The Sub Inspector Of Police

Kerala High Court

Sameer V vs The Sub Inspector Of Police 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.1/2023 IN CRL.A NO. 186 OF 2023
              SC 707/2016 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,NILAMBUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

     SAMEER V, AGED 43 YEARS ,S/O ABU, VADAKKAN HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM AMSOM,
     MELEKOOTTAMPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679330

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION,
     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679332
  2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the

High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by

the Special Judge ,Fast Track Special Court , Nilambur in S.C.707/2016 and

to release him on bail.



     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application

and upon hearing the arguments of      M/S.SUNNY MATHEW, NIKITTA TRESSY

GEORGE, 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 2023
                               in
                 Crl.Appeal No. 186 of 2023
   -----------------------------------------------------------
            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. 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 grave in nature. On account of the offence he has committed and the consequent Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2023 in 2 Crl.A.No.186 of 2023 ostracisation, the victim boy, who was aged only 12 years at the time of occurrence, has been put to untold miseries. Considering the gravity and nature of the offence and the tenure of the sentence imposed, the petitioner is not entitled to get an order suspending the sentence.

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

4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(a) read with 4, 5(l) read with 6 and 5(m) read with 6 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 is as follows:

The victim as well as the petitioner were living in the same locality. During a period of more than a year prior to 03.01.2016, the petitioner had subjected the victim to carnal intercourse on multiple occasions. The victim was subjected to anal sex. The trial court believing the evidence tendered Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2023 in 3 Crl.A.No.186 of 2023 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 and the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the conviction is based on unreliable and insufficient evidence, and the appeal will be allowed. Having gone through the judgment it is seen that the contentions raised by the petitioner were duly explained by the trial court. However, those contentions require detailed consideration in the appeal.

7. The period of sentence imposed is 10 years. He was convicted and sentenced on 27.01.2023. Considering that the grounds to appeal the impugned judgment deserves detailed assimilation in the appeal. Considering that and also the 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 on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2023 in 4 Crl.A.No.186 of 2023

(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 Pookkottumpadam 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