Prince @ Vava vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Prince @ Vava vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
           Thursday, the 23rd day of May 2024 / 2nd Jyaishta, 1946
                CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.524 OF 2024
              SC 426/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, VARKALA
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:

     PRINCE @ VAVA, AGED 34 YEARS,
     S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALLIL THODIYIL VEEDU,
     KAYALPURAM, ILAKAMAN DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE,
     AYIROOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695310.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

     STATE OF KERALA
     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682031,
     THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
     AYIROOR POLICE STATION.


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence in SC
No.426/2021 dated 07.03.2024 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court,
Varkala and release the appellant on bail, pending disposal of the appeal.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.R.DHANIL, SENITTA P. JOJO,
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 2024
                                in
                  Crl.Appeal No.524 of 2024
      ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 23rd day of May, 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 opposes the petition by contending 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 and the consequent ostracisation, the victim, who was aged only six 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 2 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.524 of 2024 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 offence punishable under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 10 read with Section 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The term of sentence the petitioner has to undergo is imprisonment for six years.

5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he sexually molested the victim who was aged only six years while the victim was entrusted with him by her mother for her to go to a nearby shop and purchase household articles. The incident had taken place inside the house of the victim. 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 3 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.524 of 2024 the victim. Therefore, the conviction is based on unreliable and insufficient evidence, and the appeal will be allowed. 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 conviction of the petitioner are wrong.

7. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 07.03.2024. He has been in jail since the said date. The petitioner has a contention that the petitioner was manhandled by the father of the victim along with two others and in order to circumvent the possible prosecution, this case was foisted against him. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, the said contention is not prima facie acceptable. The matter, however, requires detail consideration. Having considered the nature of the offence and the circumstances borne out from the records, I am of the view that execution of the sentence can be suspended subject to conditions:

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is 4 Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.524 of 2024 granted bail on his 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) He shall deposit 50% of the fine amount in the trial court within one month;

ii) He shall not enter the local limits of Vellarada 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 PV 23-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar