Kerala High Court
Sreekala Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2024
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
Wednesday, the 29th day of May 2024 / 8th Jyaishta, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO. 595 OF 2022
SC 116/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
SREEKALA MOHAN ,AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. MOHANAN KUNJAI, PUTHENPARAMBIL
HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM , PIN
- 686105
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 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
applicant/appellant vide judgment in S.C.No.116 of 2014 on the file of the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge IV,Kottayam dated 07.04.2022 ,
pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal , in the interests of
justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.SRUTHY K.K, P.M.RAFIQ,
M.REVIKRISHNAN, AJEESH K.SASI, MITHA SUDHINDRAN, SRUTHY N. BHAT, RAHUL
SUNIL, Advocates for the petitioner and of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
respondent, the court passed the following:
p.t.o
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024
In
Crl.Appeal No.595 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 29th day of May, 2024
ORDER
M.B.Snehalatha, J
Petitioner is the appellant in the above criminal appeal
and she is the accused in S.C.No.116/2014 on the files of
the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam. The appeal is
preferred challenging the conviction and sentence of the
appellant/A1 passed against her for the offences punishable
under Sections 114, 115, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code [for brevity, 'the IPC'].
2. The instant application has been filed seeking
suspension of the order of sentence dated 07.04.2022
passed against her.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The
appellant/A1 had relationship with the victim Leneesh.
When she got knowledge that the victim maintained
relationship with other ladies as well, she hatched a
conspiracy with A2 to A4 to wreck vengeance and in
furtherance of that conspiracy, on 22.11.2013 A1 invited
Lineesh to room No.233F of Ward No.VIII of Kottayam
Municipality, wherein she was conducting a Home Nursing
Centre. Thereafter, she called the other accused, who in
turn reached there and they tied the hands and legs of the
victim and beaten him with an iron rod. A2 to A4 hit his
head on the floor. A1 poured acid on the face of the victim.
A1 & A3 forcibly administered acid mixed juice into his
mouth. Thus A1 to A4 committed murder of the victim
Leneesh. Thereafter, A2 to A4 concealed the dead body of
Leneesh in a gunny bag and abandoned it in a rubber
plantation at Kunnelpalam.
4. After trial, the Court of Sessions found A1 to A4
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201
read with Section 120B and Section 114 IPC.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/appellant/A1 would contend that there is no
evidence to show that the deceased had come to room
No.233F of S.H.Mount as alleged by the prosecution; that
the evidence on record would reveal that the incident took
place at a place called Chavittuvari, which is more than 1.5
km away from S.H.Mount. Further it is contended that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that the
victim was having enemies and prior to three months of the
alleged occurrence, he was attacked by other persons and
therefore, it is explicit that he was having other enemies.
Yet another contention urged is that recovery under Section
27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 relied on by the Trial Court is
not legally admissible, which is liable to be brushed aside. It
is further contended that there is no sufficient evidence to
establish that the accused purchased acid as alleged by the
prosecution. It is also contended that if A1 had poured acid
on the deceased and if she had forcibly administered acid
mixed juice to the deceased as alleged, naturally there
would be injury on her person and in the absence of any
such injury, the case of the prosecution that she poured acid
on the victim is to be brushed aside. It is further contended
that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the
chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with her innocence and there is no
legally acceptable evidence brought on record by the
prosecution to sustain the verdict of guilt against the
appellant/A1.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and also filed objection to that effect
stating that there are no extraordinary circumstances for
suspension of sentence. It is further pointed out that the
overt act committed by A1 stands proved; that there is a
finding in the impugned judgment that the applicant herein
namely A1 poured acid on the face of the victim and forcibly
administered acid mixed juice into the mouth of the victim.
7. It is a well-settled principle that while considering an
application for suspension of sentence, the jurisdiction of
the Appellate Court is only to examine whether there is any
patent infirmity in the order of conviction, which renders the
same prima facie erroneous and it is not open to the
Appellate Court at that stage to re-assess the evidence and
to take a different view (Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P
[(2020) 8 SCC 645]).
8. It is trite law that in an application for suspension of
sentence pending disposal of the trial, what has to be seen
by the Court is whether there is any patent infirmity in the
order of conviction, which renders the same prima facie
erroneous warranting suspension of sentence
notwithstanding the conviction and not whether the
contentions of the appellant were dealt with properly by the
Court of Session. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we find no reason to suspend the sentence of
the appellants at this stage, especially in view of the finding
in the impugned judgment that A1 poured acid on the face
of the victim and A1 & A3 forcibly administered acid mixed
juice into the mouth of the victim. The correctness of the
said finding in the impugned judgment can certainly be
examined in the appeal.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE
sp
29-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
