Madras High Court
Emmanual Lourdh Joseph vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 12 February, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1199 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.01.2025
Pronounced on : 12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1199 of 2024
Emmanual Lourdh Joseph ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Mannachanallur Police Station,
Trichy.
(Crime No.145 of 2018) ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections
438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order, dated 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4671 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.74 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions
Judge (PCR), Trichy and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1199 of 2024
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 18.09.2024
passed in Crl.M.P.No.4671 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.74 of 2024 on the file of
the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy.
2.The brief facts of the case:
A case has been registered against the revision petitioner in
Crime No.145 of 2018 U/s.328 and 307 @ 328, 307 & 450 of IPC and
the same was taken on cognizance as S.C.No.127 of 2021 by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. The learned trial Judge has
found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 326(B) of IPC after
analyzing evidences adduced on both sides and convicted and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months as per the judgment, dated 29.08.2024.
3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioner has preferred the Criminal Appeal before the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli in
Crl.A.No.74 of 2024. Along with the appeal, he filed the petition in
Crl.M.P.No.4671 of 2024 under Section 430(1) of BNSS to suspend the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sentence till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. However, the Appellate
Court has declined to suspend the sentence as sought by the petitioner
and has dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.4671 of 2024 by order, dated
18.09.2024.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition for suspension of
sentence, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present Criminal
Revision Case before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
that the Appellate Court has reappreciated the whole evidence in the
impugned order which is passed in a petition U/s.389 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner was working as a gold appraiser in the bank. The defacto
complainant is the branch manager of the bank. The alleged occurrence
took place on 28.06.2018, but the complaint was lodged with respondent
police only on 30.06.2018 with a delay of 2 days. The petitioner filed the
criminal appeal on various grounds of appeal and the same was taken on
file by the Appellate Court. The petitioner raised one of the grounds that
the trial Court has convicted the petitioner for distinct offence
U/s.326(B) of IPC with distinct ingredients without following the
mandatory provisions of law. There are several infirmities in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecution case and further, there are contradictions in material
particulars among the evidences of prosecution witnesses. There was no
injury to the defacto complainant. The petitioner has a fair chance of
success in his appeal. The petitioner is in custody from the date of
conviction i.e., from 29.08.2024. So the impugned order may be set
aside and the sentence of the trial Court against the petitioner may be
suspended till the disposal of the appeal.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent has submitted that the revision petitioner, who was working
as a gold appraiser, poured nitric acid in the water bottle of the defacto
complainant/bank manager with criminal intention. The trial Court has
elaborately discussed and convicted the petitioner and so, the Appellate
Court declined to suspend the sentence considering the gravity of
offence. Mere custody is not a ground for entitlement of suspension of
sentence. The petition may be dismissed.
7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put
forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The Appellate Court has passed the impugned order by quoting
certain rulings and discussion of judgment of the trial Court findings.
Even as per the citation quoted by the Appellate Court in the impugned
order it is observed as follows:-
“The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of section 389 of
the CrP.C. and try to pick up few lacunas and
loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution,
such would not be a correct approach.”
The Appellate Court has dismissed the petition of the revision
petitioner by stating in paragraph No.8 as follows:
“8. In the present case, the accused who was
working as a gold appraiser of a nationalized bank
had attempted to kill the defacto complainant who was
working as a Branch Manager in the very same bank
by mixing deadly poisonous Nitric Acid in her drinking
water bottle.”
Except this, there is no other observation made by the Appellate
Court for declining the suspension of sentence. However, the appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner has been taken on file upon the
memorandum of appeal grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out certain infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidences of
prosecution case and also there are certain contradictions in the material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidences. However, these are to be decided while deciding the criminal
revision on merits. The fact remains that there are arguable points
involved in the criminal appeal. The petitioner was convicted and is in
prison from 29.08.2024. The petitioner was on bail during trial
proceedings. Considering the age of the petitioner and other facts and
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to suspension of sentence till the
disposal of the criminal appeal filed by him.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the
order, dated 18.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4671 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No.74 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional District and
Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, is set aside. The sentence of
imprisonment alone imposed by the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Tiruchirappalli in S.C.No.127 of 2021 as per its judgment, dated
29.08.2024 is suspended till the disposal of the aforesaid Crl.A.No.74 of
2024. The revision petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
with two sureties each for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs
and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the
trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or
Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; and
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial
Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli once
in a month i..e, on the first working day of every
English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m. until further
orders.
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
Note : Issue Order Copy on 12.02.2025
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Mannachanallur Police Station,
Tiruchirappalli.
(Crime No.145 of 2018)
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
