Kerala High Court
Krishnan.V vs State Of Kerala on 31 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 31st day of May 2024 / 10th Jyaishta, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2022 IN CRL.A NO.459 OF 2022
SC 876/2017 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, THALIPARAMBA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
KRISHNAN V., AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.AMBU,
SUNIL NIVAS, AZHIKODE.P.O, KACHERI PEEDIKA,
AZHIKODE AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670009.
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 suspend the execution of sentence in
S.C.No.876/2017 of Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Taliparamba and
release the petitioner on bail during the pendancy of the above appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.V.A.SATHEESH, V.T.MADHAVANUNNI,
ANAND V.S, 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 2022
in
Crl.A. No.459 of 2022
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st 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. He therefore claims that he is
entitled to get execution of his sentence suspended.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that 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 of the offence
punishable under Sections 3(a) and (d) r/w Section 4, Section
5(l), and (m) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506(i) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The term of sentence the petitioner has to
undergo in terms of the impugned judgment is 10 years.
5. The prosecution case is as follows:
The petitioner subjected the defacto complainant, a boy
aged 8 years, to penetrative sexual assault on multiple
occasions starting from 20.12.2016. There were also
allegations that the petitioner trafficked the victim for the
purpose of subjecting him to sexual assault, and threatened
him not to reveal the incidents to anyone else. Although the
petitioner was found guilty of the offence of penetrative
sexual assault, he is found not guilty of the offence of
trafficking.
6. The petitioner was convicted on 12.04.2022. He
has been under detention since the said date. He underwent
detention during the pretrial period from 22.04.2017 to
04.08.2017. He is a person aged around 80 years no.
Considering those mitigating circumstances, I am of the view
that execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioner can
be suspended subject to strict conditions.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall
be released 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 Rs.45,000/- toward the fine amount
in the trial court within one month;
ii) He shall not enter the local limits of Valapattanam
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
SSK/31/05
31-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
