Kerala High Court
Vinod vs Versus 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.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO. 606 OF 2024
SC 313/2022 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, CHENGANNUR
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
VINOD V S, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O P.N VIJAYAKUMAR, GOKULAM
VEEDU,KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,KAITHA THEKKUMURIYIL,
CHETTIKULANAGARA,ALAPUZHA DT, PIN - 690106
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
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 allow this Crl.M.A. and suspend the further
execution of the sentence imposed against the Applicant/Appellant/Accused
in Judgment dated 24/2/2024 in S.C. No.313/2022 passed by the Court of
Fast Track Special Judge, Chengannur till the disposal of the above appeal
in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL, Advocate 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 2024
in
Crl.Appeal No. 606 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 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, the victim girl, who was aged only 9 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 to suspend 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 Sections 341, 342, 354, 354A(2) r/w
354A(1)(i) and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Section 8 read with Section 7 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The term of
sentence the petitioner has to undergo is imprisonment for
five years.
5. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that
the petitioner at about 9.00 a.m. on 07.12.2021 followed the
victim while she was going to a nearby house, gagged her
and took her to his house. Inside his house the petitioner
had touched and fondled at her breast and abdomen with
sexual intent. 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.
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 is wrong.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the
victim is even now is afraid of the petitioner. His nature
being that he used to abuse women and children granting
him liberty will be alarming to the victim. It is also pointed
out that his wife left his company owing to his character.
8. The period of sentence imposed is five years. He was
convicted and sentenced on 24.02.2024. The contentions
raised by the petitioner to assail the impugned judgment
require deeper consideration. Considering that and other
mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that execution of
sentence can be suspended subject to strict conditions, so as
to protect the interest of the victim.
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 revenue districts of Alappuzha
and Kollam 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
