Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Ashok Singh Bhadauria - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl.A. 382 of 2020, Crl.M.(Bail) 7778 of 2020, Crl.M.(Bail) 378 of 2023 and Crl.A. 580 of 2020, Crl.M.(Bail) 8335 of 2020, Crl.M.(Bail) 435 of 2022, Crl.M.A. 25873 of 2022
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure - Suspension of Conviction - Sections 120B, 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341, 304 of IPC and Section 3 of Arms Act - The court suspended the execution of the sentence and granted bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants sought suspension of conviction and sentence during the pendency of their appeals. They were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. The appellants argued that the conviction for certain offences was not justified and that they had already undergone a significant portion of their sentences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had already served a substantial portion of their sentences and that the trial court's observations and conclusions were erroneous in several instances. The court also noted that the appellants had not misused their liberty during interim bail and that their appeals had been pending for a considerable period without being heard.
Issues: The issues revolved around the justification of the appellants' convictions, the sufficiency of the sentences already served, and the pending status of their appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellants' substantial time served, the erroneous observations and conclusions of the trial court, and the prolonged pendency of their appeals as grounds for suspending their sentences and granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the appellants, subject to conditions ensuring their regular attendance at court hearings, compliance with legal procedures, and non-interference with the case.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Crl.M.(Bail) No. 7778/2020 in Crl A. 382/2020
Crl.M.(Bail) No. 8335/2020 in Crl. A. 580/2020
1. The present applications have been filed under section 389 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of conviction of the appellants vide judgment dated 04.03.2020 and suspension of sentence vide order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (West), Tis-Hazari Courts, Delhi, during the pendency of the present appeals.
2. The appellant Ashok Singh Bhadauria (herein referred to as Appellant no. 1) has been convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 166/167/193/201/203/211/218/323/341 and 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The appellant Kamta Prasad Singh (herein referred to as Appellant no.2) has been convicted under 120B read with 166, 167, 193, 201, 203, 211, 218, 323, 341 and section 304 of the IPC; Section 3 of the Arms Act; Section 341, 323 read with section 304 of the IPC read with section 1208 of the IPC; and under section 193, 201, 203 and 211 of IPC read-with 1208 of the IPC.
4. Both the appellants have been convicted vide common judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed in R.C. No. 0062018S0009 [Crime No. 89/2018 PS Makhi, Unnao] (SC No. 446/2019) and R.C. No. 0062018S0010 [Crime No. 90/2018 PS Makhi, Unnao] (SC No. 449/2019) registered at CBI/ACB/Lucknow.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Appellant/Convict Ashok Singh Bhadauria along with Convict Kamta Prasad Singh were sentenced to the following terms for each offence:
I. For offence u/s 120B IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
II. For offence us 166 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.
III. For offence u/s 167 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
IV. For offence u/s 193 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 18 months.
V. For offence u/s 201 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
VI. For offence us 203 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
VII. For offence u/s 211 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of ssh fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 18 months.
VIII. For offence u/s 218 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
IX. For offence u/s 323 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
X. For offence w/s 341 IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 days.
XI. For offence us 304 Part-II IPC- Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 24 months.
XII. For offence u/s 3 r/w S. 25 of the Arms Act- Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs, 5,000/-, in default of payment of such fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
6. Learned counsel for appellant no. 1 has submitted that for the offences under sections 120B, 166, 167, 201, 203, 218, 323, 341 of IPC and u/s 3 r/w Section 25 of Arms Act, the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence.
7. Learned counsel has submitted that for the offence under section 193 of IPC, the conviction is not justified beca
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of time served, erroneous trial court observations, and prolonged appeal pendency as grounds for suspending sentences and grantin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals, considering the principles laid dow....
The judgment establishes that inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of corroborative evidence can warrant suspension of sentences pending appeal.
The judgment underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing guilt in serious criminal cases, particularly murder.
The judgment addresses the sufficiency of evidence in murder and conspiracy cases, emphasizing that mere presence or signaling cannot constitute complicity in a crime.
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
Suspension of sentence and grant of bail – Societal concerned has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty and societal concern deserve to be given priority over lifting restrictions....
Suspension of sentence is only granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the conviction may not be sustainable, which was not established in this case.
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
