Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11246 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                     &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
          Friday, the 27th day of October 2023 / 5th Karthika, 1945
                CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.A NO.152 OF 2022
         SC NO.529/2013 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT III, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

     PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS,
     S/O. NARAYANAN, ATTICHIRA HOUSE,
     NEELAMPEROOR P O, KAINADY,
     KAVALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 686534.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

     STATE OF KERALA
     REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
     ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend execution of sentence imposed on the
petitioner as per order of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2021 in SC
No.529 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge No.III,
Alappuzha, pending disposal of the above appeal.


     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.S.MANU, DILU JOSEPH, C.A.ANUPAMAN,
MANJU E.R., ANANDHU SATHEESH, Advocates for the petitioner and of the
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court passed the following:




                                                                      P.T.O.
             P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
                -----------------------------------------------
                 Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2022
                -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023.


                                ORDER

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the

learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This is an application filed by the appellant under

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) seeking

orders suspending the sentence imposed on him consequent on his

conviction in terms of the judgment in S.C.No.529 of 2013 on the

files of the Additional Sessions Court III, Alappuzha, which is

impugned in this appeal.

3. The appellant stands convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 447 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month for

the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and imprisonment for

life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accusation

against the appellant in the case is that on 10.05.2004, he

trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the deceased and

entered into an altercation with her. It was alleged that in the course

of the altercation, the accused struck at her neck, hand and other

parts of the body using a chopper and thereby caused her death. It

is on a finding that the prosecution has proved the said accusation

that the Court of Session convicted the accused for the offences

referred to above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the witnesses examined to prove the occurrence namely, the

son, daughter-in-law and the younger brother of the husband of the

deceased, who were examined in the case as PW1, PW2 and PW3

respectively did not support the case of the prosecution and it is

based on the first information statement of PW1 that the Court of

Session convicted the accused. According to the learned counsel,

the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and it is necessary,

therefore, to suspend the execution of the sentence imposed on the

appellant in the interests of justice.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application.

6. A reading of the impugned judgment indicates that

the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the

witnesses examined to prove the occurrence, namely the son,

daughter-in-law and the younger brother of the husband of the

deceased did not support the case of the prosecution, and it is

placing reliance on the first information statement of PW1 that the

Court of Session convicted the accused. We are, therefore, prima

facie in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is erroneous.

We are, therefore, inclined to suspend the execution of the sentence

imposed on the petitioner.

In the result, the application is allowed. The execution

of the sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended on condition

that he shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.

YKB

27-10-2023 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar