The court has the discretion to suspend a sentence pending appeal under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. based on substantial and arguable points in the case and to prevent aberration of justice.

S.MANIKUMAR, J.

The Petitioner/appellant has filed the present petition, under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence, imposed on him, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.64/2014, dated 16.04.2015.

2. The petitioner/appellant is the sole accused. After he has been convicted for the offence, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner/appellant has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.412 of 2017 and filed C.M.P.No.8873 of 2017, seeking suspension of sentence, pending appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, Thangamani, residing in Vadakipalayam area at Kullichettypalayam, had given in marriage, her daughter, Bakyam, to the petitioner/appellant, 3 years ago and after the marriage, both were living in Moongilmadai. Further, whenever PW.1 and her younger daughter, went to see her daughter, the petitioner/appellant tortured her daughter. Hence, PW.1, has brought and maintaining her. Even after that there was a problem between them.

5. While so, on 19.09.2003, about 4.0 clock in the evening, when PW.1, was talking with her sister, Mrs.Thirumal and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, the petitioner/appellant was shouting at Bakiyam, daughter of PW.1 and when they went inside the house, the petitioner/appellant was holding the child, in his right hand and strangulating Bakiyam, with his left hand. When the abovesaid three persons shouted, the petitioner/appellant dropped the child and ran away. Her daughter fell down and died. Immediately, they informed the Village Administrative Officer, PW.6 and on his advice, preferred a complaint before the respondent-Police.

6. The petitioner/appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC., in S.C.No.64 of 2011, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore. Learned Sessions Judge, has convicted the petitioner/appellant, for the offence, under Section 302 of IPC, without giving benefit of doubt to him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

7. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangulated by the petitioner/appellant, PW.4, Forensic Surgeon, has deposed that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased, could have been caused due to strangulation, by inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.1, on the aspect of witnessing strangulation, Mr.T.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that when PW.1, in her cross-examination, has stated that she has not witnessed the deceased, protesting strangulation, case of the prosecution that PW.1, had witnessed the petitioner/appellant, strangulating the deceased, falls ground.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider that two months prior to the alleged occurrence, PW.1, mother of the deceased attempted to commit suicide. It is her further case that the injuries found on the neck, could be due to the deceased, attempting suicide. He therefore submitted that the petitioner/appellant has some arguable points and that since he was in jail, from the date of conviction, he has sought for bail.

9. Per contra, Mr.J.Karuppiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that PW.1, has categorically stated that she had witnessed the petitioner/appellant, strangulating the deceased. According to him, after hearing the alarm, PW.1, mother of the deceased, went inside the house and at that time, the petitioner/appellant, while holding his son, in the right hand, was strangulating the deceased, with his left hand. When PW.1 shouted, the petitioner/appellant ran away. He further submitted that PW.4, Doctor, has corroborated the injuries to the act of the appellant and other witnesses have also supported