Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

High Court of Kerala Suspends Sentence for One, Denies for Another found to be involved in 30 Crimes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by the Honourable Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, has rendered a divided verdict in the case of two individuals convicted of serious offences, including attempted murder under Section 307 of the IPC. The court has granted suspension of sentence to the first petitioner, Ratheesh, while denying the same to the second petitioner, Eldho @ Achi Eldho, citing their extensive criminal backgrounds and involvement in multiple crimes.

Justice Ajithkumar, in his judgment, highlighted the complexity of the case. "The question is whether there is any special circumstance to deny them bail," the judge observed, referring to the extensive criminal history of both petitioners. The first petitioner, Ratheesh, was found to be involved in 30 crimes, yet had not been convicted in any of these. Conversely, Eldho, the second petitioner, had a conviction under Section 307 of IPC and was involved in a case under Section 302 of IPC.

The decision comes in the wake of a detailed examination of the petitioners' involvement in numerous crimes, with the court meticulously listing their criminal history. The ruling underscored the principle that suspension of sentence should be considered liberally unless exceptional circumstances exist, as per the Apex Court's guidelines in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others v. State of Gujarat.

Justice Ajithkumar's judgment also referenced Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary [AIR 2023 SC 2202], emphasizing the appellate court's duty to objectively assess materials on record when deciding on suspension of execution of sentence.

The court granted suspension of sentence to Ratheesh under strict conditions, including a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties and adherence to specific conduct requirements. Meanwhile, the petition for suspension of sentence for Eldho was dismissed due to his more severe criminal record and past convictions.

Date - 8th day of December 2023

RATHEESH  VS THE STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News