Says Maria Susairaj, who has served her three-year sentence during the trial; however her co-accused, Emile Jerome Matthew, will have to spend seven more years behind bars
Says Maria Susairaj, who has served her three-year sentence during the trial; however her co-accused, Emile Jerome Matthew, will have to spend seven more years behind barsA murderous and unexpected turn of events over the past three years in the life of the budding Kannada starlet found her a wee bit dumbstruck yesterday.u00a0"I am stuck here and I can't think of anything else so I wouldn't be able to answer this question now," said Monica Maria Susairaj, when MiD DAY asked her if she had any plans to visit Mumbai again, to pursue her film career, after her bitter experience. Talking about the hard work her lawyers put in the case, she said she appreciated their work, but added, "It (lighter punishment) is God's blessing."
Dumbstruck: Maria Susairaj was found guilty of trying to destroy
evidence under Section 201 of the IPC. Pic/Sayed Sameer AbediTo Emile Jerome, however, who is convicted of culpable homicide and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the blessing was refused. "I am not happy with the judgment and will appeal to prove my innocence," he said. While his defence counsel will have to file an appeal in a higher court within 30 days, the state government has 60 days to appeal against the judgment, if they think it is lenient. In the event that both parties approach higher courts, the odds for the mitigation of the sentence as well as its aggravation will be equally split.
In this regard, a senior public prosecutor, advocate Rohini Salian, said, "In this case, both parties are aggrieved. They may go to a higher court in appeal. If the accused alone files an appeal to get relief, the court may not increase the punishment. But if prosecution also files an appeal, the judges of the higher court may enhance or even overturn the judgment as they re-appreciate the decision. They may look into whether the judge had made any mistake in pronouncing the verdict."
Maria still in jail Susairaj had to stick it out for another night languishing in the prison because the formalities of her release were not completed. After declaring the quantum of the punishment for Susairaj and Jerome, Additional Sessions Judge M W Chandwani started hearing another case. Meanwhile, the operative part of Neeraj Grover's murder caseu00a0-- the paperwork required to let Maria off from jailu00a0-- got held up. Her lawyer couldn't deposit the fine necessary for her release. As a consequence, Maria's stay behind the bars increased by a day. She is expected to be released today.
Also, though the court has ordered Maria to pay a fine of Rs 50,000, she will have to deposit an extra Rs 10,000. The extra dough acts as a collateral. An amendment made to Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that any acquitted or convicted person deposit a surety amount to come out of jail.
This guarantees, at least in an official capacity, that they will be available to face the trial if the state appeals against the judgment.
Judge's gag
The judiciary, having to pronounce the sentence in a long-drawn, tricky case, dispersed the tension in the air a bit by taking a crack at an opportune moment. Before the court declared the judgment, the prosecution was vehemently arguing for a severe punishment.
During the course of the argument, Jerome's advocate, Khan Abdul Wahab, gave a copy of a newspaper article to the judge. It bespoke his client's reportedly commendable conduct in jail, and spoke of how he was engaged in teaching his fellow prisoners. The news report was put forward before the bench so the judge might consider giving him a lighter punishment, in the light of his good deeds. But the judge simply said, "If he is teaching prisoners, then why not keep him in jail for a longer time?"u00a0 Eventually, however, the verdict was decided on the merits of the case.
