Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR, J.
SHAM LAL - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2004,
DECIDED ON AUGUST 6, 2004
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389 - Suspension of sentence - Accused convicted under Sections 364/302/34 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment - High Court in appeal suspended the sentence the accused persons except of the appellant- Contention that case of the appellant could not be distinguished from the cases of other accused persons so far as the role assigned to them in the incident is concerned- Contention accepted and sentence of the appellants suspended and directed to be released on bail [Paras 3 and 4]
ORDER
1. LEAVE GRANTED.
2. FOUR ACCUSED PERSONS WERE HELD GUILTY OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 364/302/34 IPC AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE. ALL THE ACCUSED PERSONS HAVE PREFERRED APPEALS WHICH ARE PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT. THE PRAYER FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT SHAM LAL HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE HIGH COURT.
3. IT IS CONCEDED AT THE BAR THAT THE SENTENCES PASSED ON ALL OTHER THREE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED AND THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL AND SO FAR AS THE PRESENT APPELLANT BEFORE US IS CONCERNED HIS CASE CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CASES OF OTHER ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SO FAR AS THE ROLE ASSIGNED TO THEM IN THE INCIDENT IS CONCERNED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL, IT WILL BE JUST AND PROPER NOT TO DENY A SIMILAR RELIEF TO THE PRESENT APPELLANT AS HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE THREE OTHERS.
4. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. IT IS DIRECTED THAT DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BY THE HIGH COURT THE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE PASSED ON THIS APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN SUSPENDED AND HE SHALL BE RELEASED ON BAIL ON A FURNISHING PERSONAL BOND AND SECURITY BOND IN THE AMOUNT APPOINTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND TO ITS SATISFACTION FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
