Kerala High Court
Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Tuesday, the 9th day of April 2024 / 20th Chaithra, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.608 OF 2024
SC 685/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT VIII, ERNAKULAM
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
PRADEEP, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, OTTUPURACKAL VEEDU, CHERAI
BHAGAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682501.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, MAIN ROAD, NORTH
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated
15.02.2024 against the appellant/5th accused in S.C.No.685/2004 on the
file of the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge - VIII, Ernakulam and
enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail, in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR, C.ANILKUMAR
(KALLESSERIL), 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 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024;
and
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 09th day of April, 2024
ORDER
These petitions are filed by the respective petitioners
seeking suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. They were convicted as per the judgment dated
15.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147,148, 447, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The longest period of sentence
imposed commonly on the petitioners is 10 years.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to
all the petitions. Grant of bail by suspending execution of the
sentence is opposed on the ground that based on sufficient
evidence the petitioners were convicted. Antecedents of the
petitioners are also pointed out as a reason to dismiss these
petitions.
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024; and
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. One of the reasons pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the conviction is illegal since
no de novo trial was held after impleading of accused Nos.14
to 17, among whom accused Nos.14 and 15 were convicted.
In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners
commonly placed reliance on the decision of a Constitutional
Bench of the Apex Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State
of Punjab [2023 (1) SCC 289].
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat [1999 (4)
SCC 421], in order to contend that when a convicted person
is sentenced to a fixed term of sentence, his plea for
suspension of execution of the sentence shall be considered
liberally. The Appellate Court however, held further that in
exceptional circumstances, the plea for suspension of
sentence can be declined. In that view of the matter,
sentence imposed on the petitioners can be suspended
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024; and
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024
except insofar as the persons who have serious criminal
antecedents.
7. The reason pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage and hold the
conviction incorrect or illegal. But that contention requires
serious consideration. The term of sentence imposed and the
period that was taken to conclude the trial need reckoning. A
pretty long period will be taken to hear and dispose of these
appeals also. The criminal antecedents pointed out by the
learned Public Prosecutor are not sufficient to deny the benefit
of Section 389(1) of the Code to the petitioners.
8. Taking all such aspects into account, these petitions
are allowed. Sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended
by each of the petitioners 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) They shall deposit entire fine amount in the trial
court within one month;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.457 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.323 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.380 of 2024;
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.458 of 2024; and
Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2024
ii) They shall not enter the local limits of North Paravur
Police Station till the final disposal of this appeal;
iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in
any offence; and
iv) They shall not contact or try to intimidate the injured
or other 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
SMF
09-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
