Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
1
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9007/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/05/2013
in CRLA No. 614/2006 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At
Ernakulam)
SUNIL KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bail and office report)
Date : 12/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Raghunath,Adv.
Ms. Jemtiben AO, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and Signature Not Verified sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of eight Digitally signed by Shashi Sareen Date: 2014.11.17 11:11:09 ALMT Reason: years. The High Court has affirmed that conviction and sentence. When the present SLP came up before us on 06.01.2014 we had initially suspended the sentence 2 awarded to the petitioner for a limited period of eight weeks only subject to his furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. When the matter appeared before us again on 17.02.2014 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the petitioner was on bail he had offered to marry the prosecutrix and that the proposal had not been turned down by her. It is also submitted that further progress in that direction was possible only if the victim was impleaded as party respondent in the matter and asked to appear before the Court. We had accordingly added prosecutrix as party respondent No. 2 and issued notice to her. We also directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- towards travel and incidental expenses to enable her to appear before this Court. That apart the direction was complied with by the petitioner. Ever since November, 2014 this matter has been adjourned on three different occasions in the past. But respondent No. 2 remain unserved nor does the petitioner appear to have taken steps either to secure her presence or take the proposal made by him any further.
In the circumstances we see no reason to continue indulgence shown to the petitioner in terms of the suspension of sentence awarded to him. We accordingly 3 vacate the order passed by us earlier and direct the petitioner to surrender to custody within four weeks from today and to produce proof of such surrender.
Post again in January, 2015 for further
orders.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master