Kerala High Court
Friday vs Beena Antony on 14 May, 2021
Crl.M.Appl/2/2021 IN CRL.A 112/2017 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Friday,the 14th day of May 2021/24th Vaisakha, 1943
For information purpose only
Crl.M.Appl/2/2021 IN CRL.A/112/2017
SC No.103/2014 of the SESSIONS COURT ,KALPETTA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT
BEENA ANTONY,AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. ANTI @ ANTONY, PALLITHARA HOUSE, MOOPPAINAD AMSOM,
ARAMANGALAMCHAL, RIPPON POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
Now undergoing imprisonment in Vanitha Jail, Kannur, Pin- 680004
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.KOCHI - 31.
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court be pleased to
suspend the execution of sentence, dated 20-11-2015 passed against the petitioner/appellant in
S.C. No. 103/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, during the pendency of the above
Criminal Appeal and she may be released on bail, in the interest of justice.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition, and upon hearing the
arguments of M/S MANJU ANTONEY, R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD, Advocates for
the petitioner and the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court passed the
following:
Crl.M.Appl/2/2021 IN CRL.A 112/2017 2/6
Annexure 8: Truecopy of the medical records on Neethu Antony issued from Govt. Medical
College, Calicut.
For information purpose only
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JJ
--------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2021
in
Crl.A.No.112 of 2017
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of May, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
This application is filed Sec. 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of
the sentence.
2. The applicant herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.103/2014 on the file
of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta. She was tried for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, and was found guilty and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a
default sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
with a default clause for the offense under Section 201 of the IPC.
3. Sri.Manju Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
submitted that the prosecution allegation is that the applicant murdered one
Meenakshi, who allegedly was having an illicit relationship with her husband. It is
contended by the learned counsel that the case rested purely on circumstantial
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2021 in
evidence. After painstakingly taking us through the judgment under challenge, it
was argued that circumstances highlighted were hardly sufficient to connect the
applicant with the commission of the crime. He would then urge that the
For information purpose only
circumstances alleged against the applicant were not proved on facts and even if
proved, did not connect her with the commission of crime as, according to the
learned counsel, important links in the chain of circumstances are missing. Finally
it was submitted that the circumstances presented were neither cogent nor
convincing and did not lead to a hypothesis that was incompatible with the
innocence of the accused.
4. The learned counsel would then contend that the applicant is a lady
aged 44 years and the mother of three children, one of whom is suffering from
psychotic ailments. Reliance is placed on Annexure-A8 certificate to substantiate
the said contention. He would contend that the applicant was earlier granted
interim bail by this Court on 14.7.2020 and she has duly and diligently complied
with the directions. It is further submitted that taking note of the effects of the
pandemic sweeping through the Nation, directions have been issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to decongest the prisons to ensure social distancing. The
learned counsel would also refer to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 1/2020, wherein the Apex Court, considering
the steep spike in the number of people who are affected by the COVID-19
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2021 in
suggested for reducing the overcrowding in prisons.
5. We have heard Smt. Ambika Devi, the Special Public Prosecutor who
submitted that she has no serious objection in granting interim bail for a short
For information purpose only
period in view of the present circumstances.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions
made across the bar, we are of the considered view that this is an eminently fit
case where the the sentence imposed on the applicant can be suspended for a
period of three months on the following conditions:
1. The applicant be released on bail on her executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
court.
2. She shall appear before the Station House Officer concerned, on
every saturdays between 9.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m.
3. On or before the expiry of the period of three months, the
applicant shall report before the Superintendent of the prison
concerned at 10.00 a.m.
4. The applicant shall not commit or involve in any offence while on
bail.
5. It is made clear that if the sentence is upheld or even modified,
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2021 in
the time during which she is released on bail on the strength of
this order shall be excluded in computing the term of his
sentence as provided in Section 389(4) Cr.P.C.
For information purpose only
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
ps/14/5/2021
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
