Kerala High Court
Sandeep@Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Tuesday, the 6th day of February 2024 / 17th Magha, 1945
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.5 OF 2024
SC 260/2014 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, KUNNAMKULAM
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
SANDEEP @ KANNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, PADAM
HOUSE,MANAKKODI,ARIMBOOR,
THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680620.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
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 the sentence passed in S.C.260/2014
passed by the court of the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court,
Kunnamkulam dated 26.12.2023 till the disposal of Appeal in the interest
of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, K.S.RAJESH,
Advocates for the applicant 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.5 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant/petitioner
seeks to suspend the sentence by contending that there is
every possibility for allowing the appeal and to acquit him
of all the offences. He was convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for
the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
petition by contending that there is ample evidence for the
conviction of the petitioner. It is also contended that the
petitioner being a relative, subjected PW6, who was only 10
years of age, to sexual assault and hence he does not
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in
deserve any leniency.
4. There were three accused originally. The
petitioner was the 3rd accused. After filing of the final
report, noticing that the place of occurrence of the offence
committed by the other two accused was within the limits of
a different police station, the case against them was split
up. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he
hugged and kissed PW6 at her house. On a reading of the
judgment it is evident that conviction of the petitioner is
based on sufficient evidence. The discrepancies pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not sufficient
to disbelieve PW6. Of course, there is an embellishment in
her evidence that the petitioner did the act of sexual assault
five times. But such a detailed version is not available in the
initial statements. That, however, is not a sufficient reason
to disbelieve PW6; since the other evidence and
circumstance came on record substantiated that what PW6
stated about the sexual assault truly.
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in
5. Be that as it may, the period of sentence imposed
on the petitioner is five years. He has been in jail for more
than one month since conviction. During the trial, he was in
custody for 15 days. Considering the nature of the offence
and the period of sentence imposed, I am of the view that
the petitioner is entitled to get the sentence suspended
subject to strict conditions.
6. 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
jurisdictional court, subject to the following conditions:
i) He shall deposit the entire amount of fine in the
court below within two months;
ii) He shall not enter the police station limit where
the victim resides;
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 2024 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.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
06-02-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
