Section 389(1) Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence- It is a matter of record that the petitioner resorted to commit offence, which is the subject matter of trial in S.C.No.197 of 2012 while he was on bail in some other crime. The victim is no other than the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner was not on bail as on the date of passing of the judgment by the trial court. If these facts are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve for suspension of sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC pending disposal of the criminal appeal.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition No.2496 of 2013

ORDER:

        This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C. by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District seeking suspension of sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

2.     The petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 307 IPC on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram.  The victim was his wife.  Victim-Mutyala Surekha filed a report against him for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Station House Officer, Ambajipeta P.S.  The SHO, Ambajipeta P.S., registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2012. The petitioner came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.68 of 2012.  He secured bail on 12.10.2010.  After securing bail, he went to his wife and dealt a knife blow on her with an intention to do away her life.   A case in Crime No.80 of 2010 under Section 307 IPC was registered against him.   After due investigation, the S.H.O.,  Ambajipet P.S., filed charge sheet  and the concerned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as PRC 6 of 2012 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.197 of 2012 and made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Amalapuram.   On behalf of the prosecution, eleven witnesses were examined, seven documents were marked and three material objects were exhibited.  The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution substantiated the charge leveled against the petitioner/accused, convicted him accordingly for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I for a period of seven years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment  for a period of three months,  by judgment dated 6-8-2012.    The petitioner was in judicial custody by the date of passing the judgment.  

3.     The petitioner/ accused filed Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2012 on the file II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, EastGodavari District.  He moved Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2013 under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The learned          Additional Sessions Judge having taken note of the fact of the occurrence of the incident while the petitioner was on bail in some other crime and also that the petitioner was not on bail as on the date of passing of the judgment, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order dated 12-02-2013.  The petitioner/accused being unsuccessful in securing suspension of sentence from the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, approached this Court by moving the instant application under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C.

4.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

5.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has fair chances of success in the criminal appeal which has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC and therefore, the petitioner deserves for suspension of sentence imposed on him pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

6.     It is a matter of record that the petitioner resorted to commit offence, which is the subject matter of trial in S.C.No.197 of 2012 while he was on bail in some other crime.  The victim is no other than the wife of the petitioner.   The petitioner was not on bail as on the date of passing of the judgment by the trial court.   If these facts are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve for suspension of sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.21-03-2013

RAR
       
       

       



































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.