MANIMARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(2.) Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the Manimaran (A2) has filed an appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.1064 of 2023 and pending the appeal, he has filed the above miscellaneous petition seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on him.

(3.) Mr.R.Maheswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the long delay in registration of FIR and also the unexplained delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, thereby creating a doubt with regard to possibility of the petitioner (A2) being falsely implicated in this case after deliberation. Admittedly, P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are close relatives, are stated to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence and P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the persons, who have admitted the victim in the hospital on the same day at 23.00 hours. As per the Accident Register (Ex.P7), only one person is said to have inflicted injury on the victim. It is their further evidence that within 10 Minutes of them reaching the hospital along with the victim, intimation was given to the Police Station and a statement was also recorded from P.W.1. However, suppressing such statement, a complaint (Ex.P1) had been given to the Police on the next day morning and the FIR (Ex.P8) came to be registered at 07.45 hours. Strangely, though the distance between the Police Station and the jurisdictional Magistrate Court is only 25 Kms., and it is the admission of P.W.12 that there is a possibility of reaching the Court within 45 Minutes, the FIR (Ex.P8) had been received by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 18/9/2018 at 05.55 p.m. The delay in the FIR (Ex.P8) reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate Court has not been duly explained by the prosecution, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case.