Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3068 (MAD)

. v. .

2013-08-29

M.VENUGOPAL

body2013
Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner / A1 has preferred the present Miscellaneous petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court to suspend the sentence imposed on him as per judgment dated 24.11.2011 in S.C.No.365 of 2011 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC III), Chennai. 2. The Petitioner / A1 was found guilty under Sections 341 and 307 of Indian Penal Code by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC- III), Chennai, after due trial in S.C.No.365 of 2011 by Judgment dated 24.11.2011 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Section 307 of IPC and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine was ordered to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. In respect of an offence under Sections 341 of IPC, the Petitioner / A1 was imposed with the fine of Rs.100/-and in default of payment of the said fine amount, he was directed to further undergo one week simple imprisonment. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 submits that before the judgment was delivered in S.C.No.365 of 2011 (against which the present appeal is filed), the Petitioner / A1 was already detained under the Goondas Act and therefore, the Petitioner/A1 is in jail for more than 2 years. 4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1, the petitioner was detained under the Goondas Act and the detention order was set aside and that false and fabricated case was framed against the Petitioner/A1. Further, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 that witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 in S.C.No.365 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court are close relatives viz., wife and sister of P.W.1 and in fact, P.W.9 doctor had deposed that the injured / victim before coming to the hospital had consumed liquor. 5. Yet another contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 is that out of 28 cases against the Petitioner/A1, 19 cases ended in acquittal and in only S.C.No.365 of 2011, he was convicted and other 307 IPC cases are pending trial. Inasmuch as the Petitioner/A1 is inside the jail for more than 2 years. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 prays for allowing M.P.No.1 of 2013 (filed by the Petitioner) to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.365 of 2011 by the trial Court. 6. Inasmuch as the Petitioner/A1 is inside the jail for more than 2 years. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 prays for allowing M.P.No.1 of 2013 (filed by the Petitioner) to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.365 of 2011 by the trial Court. 6. Per contra, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the Petitioner/A1 filed the earlier petition for praying for suspension of sentence which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2012 and again the second petition filed for praying for suspension of sentence by the Petitioner/A1 came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 27.07.2012. Also, the third petition filed by the Petitioner/A1 for suspension of sentence was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Counsel for the petitioner on 05.09.2012, since this Court was not inclined to suspend the sentence against the Petitioner/A1. 7. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent / Complainant contends that the petitioner/A1 is involved in 28 cases all over Chennai city and in 14 cases, he was acquitted and 13 cases are pending trial and in one case viz., S.C.No.365 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court, he was convicted. Furthermore, the plea of the Respondent/Complainant is that the Petitioner/A1 was detained under the Goondas Act for 6 times and the detention orders were set aside by this Court. 8. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the Petitioner/A1 is a ' A category history sheeted rowdy' and as such, if he is released on bail, he would indulge in similar kind of offences in future. Moreover, he would tamper the evidences, threaten the witnesses and this would affect the case proceedings of the concerned Courts. Also, there is every possibility that he may flee away and abscond. As such a strong objections are raised on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant for allowing the M.P.No.1 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner/A1. 9. It is to be noted that when a Court of Law deals with a petition praying for suspension of sentence, it may consider the likelihood of an accused interfering with the witnesses by threatening them and also his conduct of antecedents and these matters are required to be looked into in a realistic fashion as opined by this Court. 10. It is to be noted that when a Court of Law deals with a petition praying for suspension of sentence, it may consider the likelihood of an accused interfering with the witnesses by threatening them and also his conduct of antecedents and these matters are required to be looked into in a realistic fashion as opined by this Court. 10. Be that as it may on a careful consideration of respective contention and even though the Petitioner/A1 is in Jail from 24.11.2011, this Court taking note of an important fact that the Petitioner/A1's antecedents are not palatable and also that, he has 13 more cases pending trial to his credit, this Court based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in allowing the M.P.No. 1 of 2013 (filed by the Petitioner/A1 praying for suspension of sentence). Viewed from that angle, the M.P.NO.1 of 2013 fails. 11. In the result, M.P.No.1 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner/A1 is dismissed.