Kerala High Court
Pradeepan P. V vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 3rd day of May 2024 / 13th Vaisakha, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.A NO. 1385 OF 2022
SC 250/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HOSDURG, KASARGOD
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
PRADEEPAN P. V., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O BALAN, MADAKKAL-HOUSE,
VALIYAPARAMBU-GRAMAM, UDUMBANCHOLA-POST, KASARAGOD-DIST., PIN -
671311
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA., PIN - 682031
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence of conviction imposed
against the applicant/appellant in S.c. No.250 of 2021 dated 17.12.2022
in connection with crime No. 49/2021 of Chandera police station ,
Kasaragod District on the files of the Spl.Court (for the Trial opf
Offences under the Protection of Childreen from Sexual Offences Act,2012),
Hosdurg, Kasaragod by staying the further operation of the Judgement and
order and the Applicant/Appellant may kindly be released on bail by
imposing any condition.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR, K.P.PRASANTH,
VISHNU DILEEP, T.S.KRISHNENDU, ARCHANA SURESH, JINSON JACOB, Advocates for
the petitioner,and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court
passed the following:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2022
in
Crl.Appeal No. 1385 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2024
ORDER
The appellant filed this petition 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. He, therefore, seeks to suspend
execution of the sentence.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objection opposing
the petition. 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 grave. The learned Public
Prosecutor accordingly seeks to dismiss the petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 6(1) r/w 5(l)
and 6(1) r/w 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The term of sentence the petitioner has
to undergo is imprisonment for 20 years. He has been in jail
since 07.12.2022 on which date he was convicted.
5. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that
on three days, i.e., 11.01.2021, 12.01.2021 and 13.01.2021
the victim girl, aged eight years, was playing at the house
compound of the petitioner and while so, under the guise of
helping her to climb down a mango tree, the petitioner had
inserted his finger to her vagina and thereby committed the
aforementioned offences. The trial court, 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. It
is also contended that even on accepting the entire
prosecution evidence as true, no offence as defined in
Section 3 of the PoCSO Act would not be constituted. When
there is evidence to show that there were other disputes
between the parties, the prosecution case could not be
accepted, based only on the evidence of the victim. Having
gone through the judgment and considered the available
materials, prima facie, I am unable to agree with aforesaid
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on
17.12.2022. Although the contentions raised by the
petitioner are not able to be accepted prima facie, the same
require deeper consideration. In view of that that and other
mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that execution of
sentence can be suspended subject to conditions.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner
is granted bail by suspending execution of the sentence 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 Chandera Police
Station 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.
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
03-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
