The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions required for the issuance of a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India must be met, and the delay in seeking the certificate and the intervening circumstances are relevant factors in determining the issuance of the certificate.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

This criminal original petition is brought forth by one Mr. Veera Bhaarathi seeking a certificate in the nature of Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India that his case pursuant to the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 872 of 1999 on 10.8.2000, modifying the death sentence awarded by the Principal Sessions Division, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in S.C. No. 30 of 1999, into life imprisonment, is a fit one for appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused along with the grounds on which he seeks the relief.

3. The petitioner appeared in person, and he was heard. He put forth his submissions extensively. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was also heard on those submissions.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was charged with the offences under Sections 376 and 302 read with 34 of IPC before the Sessions Division, Srivilliputhur, along with two other accused in S.C. No. 30 of 1999. In the said case, a judgment came to be passed by the trial Court finding him guilty under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and awarding the capital punishment of death sentence and two other accused also by a judgment dated 6.10.1999. An appeal preferred by him in Crl. A. (MD) No. 872 of 1999 and also the Referred Trial No. 2 of 1999 seeking affirmation of the sentence of death penalty, were taken up by a Division Bench of this Court whereby a judgment was rendered on 10.8.2000, modifying the death sentence into one of imprisonment for life. As against the same, he preferred SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4019-4020 of 2000. By an order dated 4.12.2000, the SLPs were dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred another petition before the Apex Court, and the same was not entertained. In such circumstances, this petition has been brought forth seeking the certificate.

5. The petitioner advancing his arguments would submit that after the dismissal of the SLPs by the Supreme Court, he came to know about the existence of a new piece of evidence which is vital enough to prove his innocence in this case; that the communication dated 15.3.2006, received by him from the trial Court along with the xerox copy of Exhibit P24 would indicate the foul play displayed by the prosecution in implicating him as an accused; that in the appeal, this Court had more or less come to a decision that he might be an innocent person; that apart from that, he was not given reasonable opportunity to be clearly and properly questioned by the learned trial Judge under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.; that it is obvious that the delay of 5 1/2 years on the part of the learned trial Judge in implementing the orders of this Court is the cause of the delayed representation by him, and it is neither willful nor wanton but for the reasons beyond his control; that in the instant case, there were violations of mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that the investigation done in the present case would show that the investigation agency has made him as a scapegoat; that under the circumstances, he has got a good case to be advanced in the appeal before the Apex Court, and hence, the certificate has got to be issued.

6. After looking into the materials available and considering the submissions made by the petitioner and also the reply put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the Court can grant the certificate as asked for by the petitioner for more reasons than one.

7. Admittedly, the judgment was rendered by the Court of Sessions, Srivilliputhur, in S.C. No. 30 of 1999 on 6.10.1999 whereby he was awarded death penalty which was sought to be affirmed in R.T. No. 2 of 1999. He also preferred an appeal in Crl. A. (MD) No. 872 of 1999. Both were taken up by the Division Bench of this Court, and the death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment by a judgment dated 10.8.2000. Thus, this OP has been brought forth for