Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA CRL.MP(MD) No.7371 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD)No.423 of 2026 Pradeep : Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (In Crime No.123 of 2020) : Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Petitions filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS (U/s.389(1) of Cr.P.C.) to suspend the sentence passed by the judgment, dated 18/02/2026 in SC No.100 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the criminal appeal. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Christopher Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. side) ORDER [Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in SC No.100 of 2020, dated 18/02/2027 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai and enlarge him on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal. 2.The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month SI. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/sole accused is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and that since the date of her marriage with PW10, there had been differences of opinion between them. On several occasions, the petitioner/sole accused had left the matrimonial home due to wordy altercations with the deceased. On 02/06/2020, the petitioner/sole accused left her matrimonial home and was brought back by PW10 from her parents' house. Aggrieved by the presence of the deceased, the petitioner/sole accused developed a grudge against her and decided to kill the deceased. On 03/06/2020 at 15.15 hours, when the deceased was sleeping, the petitioner/sole accused took a three-litre kerosene can from the storeroom, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. Upon noticing the fire and smoke emanating from the house, PW2, PW3, and the other neighbours rushed to the room, rescued the deceased and called an ambulance. Later, upon hearing about the incident, the husband of the deceased informed PW10, who rushed to the spot and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, for treatment, where it was found that the deceased had sustained 90% burn injuries. The deceased later succumbed to the injuries on the next day, i.e., 04/06/2020 at 12.15 hours. Based on the complaint given by PW1, who is the husband of the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 deceased, a case in Crime No.123 of 2020 was initially registered under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C., and later, during the course of the investigation, it was altered to one under Section 302 IPC. The respondent police, after completion of the investigation, filed a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai and it was taken on file as S.C No.100 of 2020. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW12 were examined, Exs.P1 to P15 were marked, and MO1 to MO4 were produced. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied the charges. After hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been filed. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/sole accused would submit that the trial Court failed to take into consideration the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Though PW4 is said to have been examined with regard to having seen the petitioner/sole accused entering the house of the deceased with a kerosene can and having seen the petitioner/sole accused giving sleeping pills to the deceased, nothing has been stated about the presence of PW1 at the time of giving the complaint on the next day. Further, there is no explanation for the delay in sending the statement of PW4 to the Court, thereby creating serious doubt with regard to the evidence of PW4. As per the evidence of PW8, the Doctor who is said to have admitted the deceased, the deceased was able to speak till her death. In such circumstances, no dying declaration was recorded from her. Further, there is no explanation in respect of the injuries on the head of the deceased and that the injuries sustained on the body of the deceased would clearly prove that it is a case of an attempt to commit suicide and not a case of homicide. He further submits that there are arguable points available and thereby prays for allowing this petition. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 5.The respondent has filed a detailed counter. The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that it is a case where the deceased committed the murder of her mother-in-law by pouring kerosene on her. The evidence of PW4 is cogent, as the witness has spoken about having seen the accused entering the house of the deceased with a kerosene can. Considering the above facts, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner/accused and he thereby prays for dismissing this petition. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there are several arguable points available in this case and that the likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future is also not probable, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner/accused. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner/accused herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions:- ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 i.The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. ii.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 passbook to ensure their identity. iii.The petitioner shall appear and sign before the trial Court at 10.30 am, on the first working day of every English Calender month until further orders. [A.D.J.C., J.] [R.P., J.] 06.07.2026 er ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 Copy to:- 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Special Prison for Women, Trichy. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7371 of 2026 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. AND R.POORNIMA, J. er CRL.MP(MD) No.7371 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD)No.423 of 2026 06.07.2026 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis