Sameer V vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2024 Latest Caselaw 11863 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sameer V vs The Sub Inspector Of Police 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.1/2023 IN CRL.A NO. 186 OF 2023
              SC 707/2016 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,NILAMBUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

     SAMEER V, AGED 43 YEARS ,S/O ABU, VADAKKAN HOUSE, AMARAMBALAM AMSOM,
     MELEKOOTTAMPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679330

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

  1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION,
     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679332
  2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031


     Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the

High Court be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by

the Special Judge ,Fast Track Special Court , Nilambur in S.C.707/2016 and

to release him on bail.



     This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application

and upon hearing the arguments of      M/S.SUNNY MATHEW, NIKITTA TRESSY

GEORGE, 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 2023
                               in
                 Crl.Appeal No. 186 of 2023
   -----------------------------------------------------------
            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. 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 grave in nature. On

account of the offence he has committed and the consequent

ostracisation, the victim boy, who was aged only 12 years at

the time of occurrence, 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 suspending the sentence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The petitioner was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and under Sections 3(a) read with 4, 5(l) read with 6

and 5(m) read with 6 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 is as

follows:

The victim as well as the petitioner were living in the

same locality. During a period of more than a year prior to

03.01.2016, the petitioner had subjected the victim to carnal

intercourse on multiple occasions. The victim was subjected

to anal sex. 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 and the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore,

the conviction is based on unreliable and insufficient

evidence, and the appeal will be allowed. Having gone

through the judgment it is seen that the contentions raised

by the petitioner were duly explained by the trial court.

However, those contentions require detailed consideration in

the appeal.

7. The period of sentence imposed is 10 years. He was

convicted and sentenced on 27.01.2023. Considering that

the grounds to appeal the impugned judgment deserves

detailed assimilation in the appeal. Considering that and also

the 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 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

Pookkottumpadam 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