Kerala High Court
Xxx vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Tuesday, the 28th day of May 2024 / 7th Jyaishta, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.2/2022 IN CRL.A.NO.917 OF 2022
SC 805/2020 OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
XXX
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE 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 execution of sentence passed against
the Petitioner/Appellant by Court of the (Fast Track) Special Judge,
Thrissur vide judgment dated 30.12.2021 in S.C.No.805/2020 which arose
from Crime No.819/2020 of Chelakkara Police Station, Thrissur and to
enlarge the Petitioner on Bail, pending disposal of the Criminal 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.SHYJU, E.M.SUNIL KUMAR, Advocates
for the petitioner and of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR the respondent,the court
passed the following:
P.T.O.
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2022
in
Crl.A. No.917 of 2022
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th 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 who is the appellant would contend
that he is innocent and there is every chance for allowing the
appeal and acquitting him. 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. The offence proved against the
petitioner is grievous. Considering the gravity and nature of
the offence 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 Section 354 of IPC and under Section 10 r/w
9(n) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The term of sentence the
petitioner has to undergo as per the impugned judgment is 7
years.
5. The petitioner was prosecuted for the allegation
that he tried to commit rape on his daughter. After trial he
was not found guilty of the charge under Section 511 of
376(3) of IPC. However, he was found guilty and convicted
for the above offences. Being the father, his conviction even
for an offence of sexual assault cannot be seen lightly.
However, the fact that he has been in jail since 29.10.2020 on
which date he was arrested in connection with this case, a
lenient view in the matter of suspension of sentence can be
taken. He can be released on bail by suspending execution of
the sentence subject to conditions.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions
submitted that the victim, along with her mother is residing
with her grand parents. In order to secure their safety, the
petitioner has to be excluded from the area where they are
residing. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the
petitioner is 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 two months;
ii) He shall not enter the revenue district of Thrissur 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
SSK/28/05
28-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
