Important Point: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is a principle alien to our criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, acquittal of four accused persons by itself would not give a certificate of innocence to the applicant/accused. Object of the legislature in keeping away the convicts from the contest of election will have to be given primacy while deciding such application.

1. This is an application of appellant/original accused no.1 for suspension of his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Case No.125 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, during pendency of the appeal filed by him.

2. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant/accused no.1. By drawing my attention to paragraph 17 and onwards of the application, the learned advocate for the applicant/accused no.1 argued that he wants to contest the election of Pune Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and 3rd February 2017 is the last date for filing nomination papers. The learned advocate argued that subsection (3) to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, prohibits a person convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting elections. By drawing my attention to subsection (4) of Section 8 of the said Act, the learned advocate argued that such bar is not absolute and upon stay of conviction, the convict can contest the elections. By placing reliance on judgment in Rajbala and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (2016) 2 SCC 445 it is argued that right to vote and right to contest are constitutional rights of the citizen and therefore, the applicant/accused no.1 is entitled to contest the elections of the Pune Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. Reliance is placed on order in the matter of Kamlesh Satyaprakash Agarwal (Bansal) vs. The State of Maharashtra Criminal Application No. 946 of 2011 dated 1st August 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in which conviction for offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC was stayed with a reason that consequence of conviction may result into dismissal of the accused, requiring him to vacate the premises alloted to him by his employer. Reliance is also placed on another order of a learned Single Judge of this court passed on 14th March 2014 in Criminal Application No. 1132 of 2013 with connected applications, and more particularly, to paragraph 9 of the said order. It is argued that in the case in hand, even the learned Single Judge of this court while releasing the applicant/accused on bail vide order dated 12th July 2012 in Criminal Application No.1076 of 2012 has held that the learned Trial Judge found difficult to rely on testimony of the injured victim, and therefore, sought corroboration by circumstantial evidence because the victim had averred that 22 persons had participated in the assault but ultimately 8 were tried and the injured had stated involvement of 4 persons only during the trial. The learned advocate took me through evidence of prosecution, and more 2 Criminal Application No. 946 of 2011 dated 1st August 2011 particularly, evidence of the injured victim, so also through the history narrated by the victim in his supplementary statement. By drawing my attention to the judgment and order of conviction, the learned advocate argued that, with similar evidence, accused nos.5 to 8 were acquitted, and therefore, present applicant who was accused no.1, so also accused nos.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. It is also argued that the motive is not proved as accused persons were canvassing for a candidate which ultimately emerged as a victorious candidate. It is submitted that evidence shows that injury on left hand is attributed to the present applicant, and therefore, he cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. With this, it is submitted that conviction recorded against the applicant/accused needs to be stayed during pendency of the appeal, in order to enable the applicant to contest the election of Pune-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

3. The learned APP opposed the application by submitting that the offence is proved.

4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings.

5. Subsections (3) and (4) of Section 8 of Represen