Kerala High Court
P.M Abdul Majeed vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 12th day of April 2024 / 23rd Chaithra, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2023 IN CRL.A.NO.909 OF 2023
SC 207/2019 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, MATTANNUR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
P.M. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 73 YEARS,
S/O. RAMZAN, MODAPRATH PUTHIYANDI HOUSE, VILAMANAAMSOM,
SANTHINAGHAR, VALLITHODE,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670703.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the
petitioner/appellant by the judgment of guilty of conviction and sentence
in S.C.No.207 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track Specail
court, Mattannur dated 31.05.2023 and release the petitioner/appellant on
bail, pending disposal of the above criminal appeal in the interests of
justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.V.ANOOP, PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP,
ANTONY THOMAS, ANJU R S., S.RAJEEV, 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 2023
in
Crl.Appeal No.909 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 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 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 grievous. On account
of the offence he has committed, the victim boy, who was
aged only 14 years at the time of occurrence, has been put to
untold miseries and trauma. Considering the gravity of the
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in
offence and the tenure of the sentence imposed, the
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 offences
punishable under Sections 363 and 370(4) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 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 was that
the petitioner subjected the victim boy to sexual assault on
06.06.2018 by taking him from the legal custody of his
parents to a Sunni Centre. The petitioner had repeated similar
acts of assault twice thereafter in the similar way. On
01.08.2018 the petitioner by threatening that his nude photo
will be published, had took the victim from his native place at
Kozhikode with a view to exploit him sexually. The trial court,
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in
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
the victim. Therefore, the conviction is based on unreliable
and insufficient evidence, and the appeal will be allowed. On
the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit
that not only that the petitioner has committed a serious
crime against a boy of tender age, but also he intimidated the
mother of the victim on a subsequent occasion for prosecuting
this matter. It is thus submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioner is not entitled to get execution
of the sentence suspended.
7. 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 the conviction of
the petitioner are wrong. It is true that the offence of sexual
assault committed is appalling as stated by the trial court.
However, the fact that the petitioner is aged 73 years now and
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in
he has been in jail since 31.05.2023, a lenient view in the
matter of grant of bail by suspending the suspension of
sentence can be taken. In the light of the fact that a
prosecution case was initiated against the petitioner with the
allegation that he intimated the mother of the victim,
sufficient precaution to avoid recurring of any such instance is
to be taken while granting bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the
petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (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 Kannur
Revenue District 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.
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in
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. It is made clear
that mere registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner by
itself entails cancellation of this order.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
12-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
