Kerala High Court
Prince @ Vava vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Thursday, the 23rd day of May 2024 / 2nd Jyaishta, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.524 OF 2024
SC 426/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, VARKALA
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
PRINCE @ VAVA, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALLIL THODIYIL VEEDU,
KAYALPURAM, ILAKAMAN DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE,
AYIROOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695310.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682031,
THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AYIROOR POLICE STATION.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence in SC
No.426/2021 dated 07.03.2024 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court,
Varkala and release the appellant on bail, pending disposal of the appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.R.DHANIL, SENITTA P. JOJO,
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.524 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the appellant 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 and the consequent ostracisation, the victim, who
was aged only six 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
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in
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 Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and under Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 10
read with Section 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The term of sentence the petitioner has to
undergo is imprisonment for six years.
5. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he
sexually molested the victim who was aged only six years
while the victim was entrusted with him by her mother for her
to go to a nearby shop and purchase household articles. The
incident had taken place inside the house of the victim. 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
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in
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 conviction of the
petitioner are wrong.
7. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on
07.03.2024. He has been in jail since the said date. The
petitioner has a contention that the petitioner was
manhandled by the father of the victim along with two others
and in order to circumvent the possible prosecution, this case
was foisted against him. Having gone through the judgment of
the trial court, the said contention is not prima facie
acceptable. The matter, however, requires detail
consideration. Having considered the nature of the offence
and the circumstances borne out from the records, I am of
the view that execution of the sentence can be suspended
subject to conditions:
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 in
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 50% of the fine amount in the trial
court within one month;
ii) He shall not enter the local limits of Vellarada 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
PV
23-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
