Jaiganesh v. The Inspector of Police

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in S.C.No.195 of 2021, by judgment dated 04.07.2022 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

2.The case of the prosecution is that earlier, the deceased assaulted the accused and the consequent criminal case was compromised; that in view of the subsequent events, the accused developed enmity against the deceased and in order to wreck vengence on the deceased, the accused decided to do away the deceased; that on 30.01.2021, the accused came in his two wheeler and was watching the deceased; that at about 12.05 p.m., while the deceased was returning to his residence after grazing cows, the accused, with an intention to kill the deceased, stabbed him with a knife due to which the deceased sustained several injuries on his front and right side neck, left and right side chest and fell down; ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the stab injuries. On the complaint made by the wife of the deceased (P.W.1), a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.63 of 2021 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

3.The petitioner was tried in S.C.No.195 of 2021 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, and ultimately, the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Though the petitioner/accused was also convicted for the offence under Section 341 IPC, no separate punishment was imposed on him for the said offence.

4.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the above Criminal Appeal and he seeks suspension of sentence and bail in the present miscellaneous petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

6.It is to be noted that, roughly about three hours after the incident, the complaint was lodged by the wife of the deceased (P.W.1), based on which, an FIR has been registered, which is marked as Ex.P18. In the FIR (Ex.P18), it is stated as follows : ",d;W 30/1/2021k; njjp fhiy vd; fzth; v';fSf;F brhe;jkhd gRkhl;il v';fs; tPl;lUfpy; uapy;nt ouhf; mUfpy; nka;r;rYf;fhf Xl;or; brd;Wk; gpd;g[ khl;il fl;o tpl;L ,d;W gfy; Rkhh; 12/05 kzpastpy; v';fs; tPl;lUfpy; mfuk; ghij rpbkd;l; nuhl;oy; khjtd; bkj;ij tPL mUfpy; ele;J tUk;nghJ taJ bjhpahj Mz; egh; xUth; Kfj;jpy; kh!;f;Fk; Crl.M.P.No.6346oofo2023 inoCrl.A.No.1006oofo2022 jiyapy; bjhg;gpa[k; mzpeJ; bfhz;L vd; fzthpd; gpdd; hy; te;jth; vd; fzthplk; tzP ; jfuhW braJ; mtd; ,Lg;gpy; kiwjJ; vLjJ; te;j fjj; pia vLjJ; vd; fzthpd; tyJ fhjpd; mUfpYk; Kd; fGjj; pYk; tyJ khh;gpYk.; ,lJ khh;gpYk;. ,lJ KH'i; fapYk; rukhhpahf Fj;jpa[k; btl;oa[k; cs;shd;/ vd; fzth; ma;nah ahuhtJ fhg;ghw;W'f; nsd; vdW; rj;jk; nghl;Lk;. ujj; btss; j;jpy; fPnH tpGe;Js;shh;/ cld; mf;fk; gf;fjj; pdh; mtid gpof;f Kad;w nghJ mtd; fjj; pal[ d; jg;gpnaho jiykiwthfpa[ss; hd;/ ehd; vd; cwtpdh; MWKfk; vd;gth; K:yk; jfty; mwpeJ; mtUld; nkw;go ,lk; brdW; ghhf; f; vd; fztUf;F mjpfg;goahd uj;jk; btspnawp Raepidtpd;wp jiuapy; fplej; hh;/ m'f; pUej; uhn$ej; pud; kidtp jdyl;Rkp vd;gth; vd; fztiu xU Ms; fjj; pahy; rukhhpahf Fjj; p tplL; Xo tpll; ij mtUk; m'f; pUej; rpyUk; ghhj; ;jjhf brhd;dhh;/ ehd; MWKfk; cjtpa[ld; vd; fztiu mtt; Hpahf te;j xU lhlh V!; thfdk; K:yk; ,d;W kjpak; Rkhh; 12/30 kzpf;F Kz;oak;ghff; k; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHjJ; brdW; rpfpri; rff; hf nrhj; ;j nghJ ghpnrhjpj;j kUjJ; t mjpfhhp vd; fzth; ,weJ; tpll; jhf bjhptpj;jhh;/ vd; fztiu bfhiy bra;j egiu fz;LgpojJ; k;. vd; fzthpd; gpnujji; j bgw;Wj;jUk;go gzptl[ d; nfl;Lf; bfhsf; pnwd;/" Pageo5oofo9

7.It is to be noted that, even according to P.W.1, at the time of making the complaint, Arumugam (P.W.2) and Dhanalakshmi (P.W.3) who have seen the occurrence, were unable to identify the accused as he was wearing a face mask and a cap. Very strangely, P.W.2 and P.W.3, in their evidence, have stated that they knew the accused and that they witnessed the crime at the time of occurrence. Therefore, when the complaint of P.W.1 itself is to find out the person who murdered her husband and that both P.W.2 and P.W.3, who knew the accused by face, were unable to identify the accused as per the FIR, the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are eye-witnesses cannot be believed.

8.This Court prima facie finds that the trial Court has convicted based on evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 which is falsified by the facts recorded in the FIR and the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, this Court finds that the conviction may not be sustained in the appeal. Hence, this Court finds that a prima facie is case made out in favour of the petitioner and therefore, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner and grant bail to him.

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused is suspended and he is granted bail on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram.

(ii)The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity; and

(iii)The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the Appeal and if he is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the trial Court. (S.S.S.R., J.) (S.M., J.)

14.12.2023 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram.

3.The Inspector of Police B1, Town Police Station, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu 605 602.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.M.P.No.6346oofo2023 inoCrl.A.No.1006oofo2022 So .S.oSUNDARo,ooJ.o and SUNDERoMOHAN,oJ. mkn Crl.M.P.No.6346oofo2023 inoCrl.A.No.1006oofo2022

14.12.2023 Pageo9oofo9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.12.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN in Crl.A.No.1006 of 2022 Jaiganesh ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police B1, Town Police Station, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu 605 602. ... Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in S.C.No.195 of 2021, dated 04.07.2022, and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor