Kerala High Court
Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Thursday, the 4th day of April 2024 / 15th Chaithra, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.283 OF 2024
SC 1690/2022 OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, PUNALUR
APPLICANT/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MADHU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O BASKARAN, THEKKUVILA VEEDU,
CHEENIVILIMELETHIL BHAGOM, ALIMUKKU MURI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE,
KOLLAM, PIN - 689696.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
(crime no. 418/2022 of Punalur police station, Kollam district)
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence in SC
No.1690/2022 disposed by Fast-Track Special Judge, Punalur till the
disposal of the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.RAJEEV, V.VINAY, M.S.ANEER,
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH, ANILKUMAR C.R., K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN, 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.283 of 2024
.........................................................
Dated this the 4th 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).
2. 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 his sentence suspended.
3. 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 is aged only 11 years,
has been put to untold miseries. Considering the gravity and
nature of the offence and the tenure of the sentence imposed, the
petitioner is not entitled to get an order to suspend the sentence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 509, 354A(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section
10 r/w Section 9(m), Section 12 r/w Section 11(1)(ii) of the
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.283 of 2024
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act.
The term of sentence the petitioner has to undergo as per the
impugned judgment is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get
execution of sentence suspended subject to conditions.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner
is 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 entire fine amount in the trial
court within one month;
(ii) The petitioner shall not enter the local limits of
Kottarakkara and Punalur Police Stations;
(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
Dxy
04-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
