Jothimani vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
After Week/Month/Vacation
Before:
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, Hon'ble R. Mahadevan
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CRIMINAL CASES
Remarks:
List After (Weeks) [3], List before court/bench [as per rop ]
Listed On:
24 Sept 2024
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
14264/2023,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
SLP (CRL.) NO. 2685/2023
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-C
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. 2685/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-08-2022 in CRLA No. 245/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
JOTHIMANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
( IA No. 14264/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 24-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. S.B.Kamalanathan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan.PV, Adv. Mr. C.Kavin Ananth, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
-
The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
-
The High Court has modified the judgment and order of the trial Court and had convicted the petitioner under Section 325 of the Code with 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.
-
On the Special Leave Petition being preferred, notice was issued to the respondent only on the quantum of sentence.
-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the only bread earner having a family with two minor children and therefore, it is a fit case for reducing the sentence may be after directing the petitioner to pay adequate compensation.
-
In order to consider the amount of compensation payable, we consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to implead the informant or the family members of the deceased.
-
Necessary steps in this regard may be taken by the petitioner within three weeks. Standing counsel for the State may also seek instructions in this regard.
-
List after three weeks.
(Ram Subhag Singh) (Geeta Ahuja) Court Master (NSH) Assistant Registrar-cum-PS