Thirunavukarasu v. The Inspector of Police

Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) This is a petition seeking suspension of sentence of one Thirunavukarasu, who was the first accused in Crime No.245 of 2014. The petitioner, along with three others had been found guilty and convicted for alleged offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine along with other sentences by judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai dated 16.08.2022. He is in jail from that date onwards.

¶2A2 had approached this Court in Crl.M.P.No.16015 of 2022 and by order dated 21.02.2023, this Court has suspended the sentence on the ground that there was a substantial delay between the alleged occurrence which was on

17.05.2014 at about 00.50 hours and the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) on 18.05.2014 which was at 12.00 noon, with a delay of 36 hours.

¶3The suspension of sentence of A2 has been taken note of by this Court in its order dated 12.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.5458 and 5463 of 2023 that had been filed by A1, the petitioner before us and A4. The Bench following the reasoning in the order passed on 21.02.2023 had suspended the sentence in the case of A4, also finding that the overt act attributed to him was insignificant.

¶4However, as far as A1 was concerned, they found that the overt act attributed to him, related to an attack on the deceased on the side of his neck with a knife and hence, at that juncture, did not deem it appropriate to suspend the sentence. A3 died during trial.

¶5In light of the aforesaid narration, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the reasoning in order dated 21.02.2023 would equally apply to the petitioner before us, particularly seeing that he is in incarceration for almost 4 years. In fact, on the same reasoning the sentence of two of the co-accused, i.e., A2 and A4 have already been suspended much earlier.

¶6Learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) would reiterate that the overt act attributed to the petitioner was one that had found to be serious by this Court earlier and hence the suspension sought for ought not to be granted.

¶7Having heard both learned counsel, our decision is as under: The facts in relation to the alleged incident have been captured at paragraph 3 of order dated 12.10.2023, which we extract below: '3.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was running a petty shop at his house. The deceased and his son Madheswaran used to object to persons who come to consume alcohol near the petty shop of the deceased. While so, when A1 and A2 were consuming liquor near the petty shop of the deceased on 16.05.2014, the deceased protested. The case of the prosecution is that due to such enmity, A1 & A2 came to the house of the deceased again on 17.05.2014 at about 00.50 hours and the first accused started attacking him with a knife on the right side chest, under the rib cage and abdomen of the deceased. Though the son of the deceased tried to stop the attack, the prosecution version shows that he was restrained by the second accused and the first accused attacked him also on the backside of neck with the knife………..'

¶8As far as the delay is concerned, we, prima facie, find that the same would enure to the detriment of the prosecution. Since one of the accused in this matter has been granted suspension of sentence on the very same ground, such delay would enure to the benefit of the present petitioner as well, particularly seeing as he has been in incarceration for nearly 4 years.

¶9It is also relevant to note that the appeal being of the year 2022 is not likely to be taken up immediately for final hearing and this is also a reason that would persuade us to suspend the sentence.

¶10In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is suspended 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Thiruvannamalai;

(ii) The petitioner and 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 and mobile number to ensure their identity;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every week 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. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 07-08-2026 sl Index: Yes/No Speaking order Note to Registry: Issue Today To

¶1The Inspector of Police Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Crime No.245/2014 Thiruvannamalai and Thiruvannamalai District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate I, Thiruvannamalai.

¶3The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. DR.ANITA SUMANTH J. AND SUNDER MOHAN J. SL AND CRL A NO. 1044 OF 2022 07-08-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN AND CRL A NO. 1044 OF 2022 Thirunavukarasu S/o.Natarajan, No.5/20, Bavaji Nagar, 2nd Street, Thiruvannamalai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Crime No.245/2014 Thiruvannamalai and Thiruvannamalai District. ..Respondent(s) CRL A No. 1044 of 2022 1. Thirunavukarasu S/o.Natarajan, No.5/20, Bavaji Nagar, 2nd Street, Tiruvannamalai. 2. Prabhu S/o.Kunjuthabhatham, No.7/11, Bavaji Nagar, 2nd Street, Thiruvannamalai. 3. Driver Seenu @ Seenuvasan S/o.Urgandi, No.74/13, Bavaji Nagar, 2nd Street, Thiruvannamalai. ..Appellant(s) Vs The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannmalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.245 of 2014). ..Respondent(s) Prayer in CRL MP No. 13488 of 2026: Criminal Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., 430 (1) of BNS to suspend the sentence imposed upon the Appellant by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in S.C.No.60 of 2015 by judgment dated 16.08.2022 and enlarge the petitioner herein on bail pending disposal of the appeal No.1044/22 and thus render justice. Prayer in CRL A No. 1044 of 2022: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to allow the above appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants vide judgment dated 16.08.2022 in SC.No.60 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai and acquit and direct the trial court to refund the fine amount in the interest of justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Venkat for Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Amarnath Counsel For Government Of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)