Back
2008(4) Supreme 486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker, J.
Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma — Appellant
versus
The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) — Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1775 of 2007
in
Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2007
Decided on : 12-05-2008
AIR 1931 All 356 : 32 CrLJ 1271 : 33 IC 842 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389 – If the appeal is not likely to be heard for long and not disposed of within a ‘measurable distance of time’, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep such person in jail for a number of years – Rather it would be appropriate if the power under Section 389 of the Code is exercised in favour of the applicant – However, in view of the likelihood of the appeal being heard within measurable distance of time bail cannot be granted. (Paras 28 and 35)
(1977) 4 SCC 291; (1978) 1 SCC 579; (2000) 4 SCC 178 : JT 2000 (1) SC 184 – Relied upon.
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389 – Once a person has been convicted, the presumption of innocence in law will not be available to him – Therefore normally, an appellate Court will proceed on the basis that such person is guilty. (Para 32)
(2000)6 SCC 461; (2002) 9 SCC 364 : JT 2004 Supp (1) SC 60; (2002) 9 SCC 366 : JT 2002 (7) SC 477; (2004) 6 SCC 175 : JT 2004 (6) SC 6; (2004) 7 SCC 638 : JT 2004 (8) SC 317; (2008) 4 SCALE 412 : JT 2008 (4) SC 461 – Relied upon.
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389 – Mere fact that during the period of trial, the accused was on bail and there was no misuse of liberty, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail – Keeping in view the seriousness of offence, the manner in which the crime was said to have been committed and the gravity of offence, we are of the view that no case has been made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. (Paras 34 and 35)
Facts of the case :
1. On April 29-30, 1999, a party was organized at ‘Tamarind Cafi’ inside Qutub Colonnade. It was a private party where certain persons were invited and liquor was served. Jessica Lal (since deceased) and one Shyan Munshi were in charge of the bar.
2. According to the prosecution the appellant Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma along with his friends came there and asked for liquor. Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi did not oblige him by providing liquor since the bar was closed. According to the prosecution, the appellant got enraged on refusal to serve liquor, took out his .22 pistol and fired two rounds, first into the ceiling and the second at Jessica Lal.
3. Jessica Lal fell down as a result of the shot which proved fatal and she died.
4. According to the prosecution, several persons witnessed the incident. Beena Ramani, who was present, stopped the appellant and questioned him as to why he had shot Jessica Lal. She also demanded weapon from the accused but the accused did not handover pistol and fled away.
5. The trial Court acquitted the accused holding that it was not proved by the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence with which he, along with other accused, was charged.
6. The State preferred an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The High Court of Delhi held that the trial Court was wrong in acquitting the accused and the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt against the appellant (as well as two other accused) and accordingly recorded conviction inter alia for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life.
Findings of the Court :
No case has been made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Result : Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, J. —
1. The present application is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for suspension of sentence pending appeal in this Court and to release him on bail.
2. Since an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court of Delhi is admitted by this Court and awaits final hearing, we will not enter into larger questions and deal with the present application for suspension of sentence and bail.
3. Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that on April 29-30, 1999, a party was organized at ‘Tamarind Cafi’ inside Qutub Colonnade. It was a private party where certain persons were invited and liquor was served. Jessica Lal (since deceased) and one Shyan Munshi were in charge of the bar. It was the allegation of the prosecution that appellant Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma along with his friends came there and asked for liquor. Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi did not oblige him by providing liquor since the bar was closed. According to the prosecution, the appellant got enraged on refusal to serve liquor, took out his .22 pistol and fired two rounds, first into the ceiling and the second at Jessica Lal. Jessica Lal fell down as a result of the shot which proved fatal and she died. According to the assertion of the prosecution, several persons witnessed the incident. Beena Ramani, who was present, stopped the appellant and questioned him as to why he had shot Jessica Lal. She also demanded weapon from the accused but the accused did not handover pistol and fled away.
4. FIR was lodged, a case was registered and investigation was carried out. At the trial, more than 100 witnesses had been examined. The trial Court acquitted the accused holding that it was not proved by the prosecution that the accused had committed the offence with which he, along with other accused, was charged.
5. The State preferred an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The High Court of Delhi held that the trial Court was wrong in acquitting the accused and the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt against the appellant (as well as two other accused) and accordingly recorded conviction inter alia for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life.
6. The High Court observed that it has “no hesitation in holding” that the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 201 and 120B, IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having committed murder of Jessica Lal on April 29-30-1999 at ‘Tamarind Cafi’ and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also imposed sentence for other offences.
7. With regard to the other two accused, however, the Court held that they were guilty for committing an offence punishable under Sections 201 and 120B, IPC.
8. The appellant-applicant approached this Court by instituting an appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 as also under Section 379 of the Code. The appeal was placed for admission. On March 7, 2007, the appeal was admitted and notice was issued on application for bail. Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent and accepted the notice. It was ordered to be listed in the first week of April, 2007, meanwhile, counter affidavit, if any, was to be filed.
9. On April 2, 2007 when the matter appeared on Board, the Court passed orders of bail in respect of other accused, but in the instant case (Crl.M.P. No. 1775 of 2007), the Court fixed final hearing of the matter. It, however, appears that the appeal could not be heard. On January 24, 2008, the Court ordered listing of appeals along with bail applications “before any other appropriate Bench” on 12th February, 2008. The matter was thus placed before this Bench.
10. In view of several other matters, howe
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
