Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Bhima Alias Manoj - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Cr.A. 643 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Suspension of Sentence - Section 389 Cr.P.C. - [Suspension of Sentence] - [Section 389 Cr.P.C.] - These applications have been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the Appellants, namely, (i) Bhima @ Manoj S/o Om Prakash, (ii) Ravi @ Anil S/o Ramesh Chand, and (iii) Munesh S/o Gajender Singh, seeking suspension of sentence in FIR No.118/2011 registered under Sections 307/34 IPC at PS: Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Since the appeals arise out of a common judgment and the same FIR, these applications for suspension of sentence were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The Court discussed the principles laid down in various cases and suspended the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals, releasing them on bail with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC for causing injuries to the victims. The Appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them. They argued that the witnesses had contradictions in their testimonies, and the place of occurrence was not clear. The Appellants had been on bail throughout the trial and had clean antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the Appellants. Considering the prolonged trial since 2011 and the observations of the Supreme Court in similar cases, the Court was inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals and released them on bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged false implication of the Appellants, contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, and the failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against the Appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court suspended the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals based on the principles laid down in various cases, including the observations of the Supreme Court in similar cases, and released them on bail with certain conditions.
Final Decision: The Court suspended the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals and released them on bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1532/2022 (suspension of sentence) in CRL.A. 643/2022, CRL.M.(BAIL) 369/2023 (suspension of sentence) in CRL.A. 236/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 6/2023 (suspension of sentence) in CRL.A. 5/2023
1. These applications have been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the Appellants, namely, (i) Bhima @ Manoj S/o Om Prakash, (ii) Ravi @ Anil S/o Ramesh Chand, and (iii) Munesh S/o Gajender Singh, seeking suspension of sentence in FIR No.118/2011 registered under Sections 307/34 IPC at PS: Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Since the appeals arise out of a common judgment and the same FIR, these applications for suspension of sentence were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 03.05.2011, upon receipt of DD No.77B that someone had been stabbed in a quarrel at 29/242, Trilok Puri, Delhi and was being taken to the hospital, police team reached at the spot where they learnt that injured had been shifted to LBS Hospital. No witness was found at the spot. On reaching the hospital, IO collected the MLC of injured Suraj and Sunil. Statement of Sunil was recorded who stated that he along with his friend Suraj were consuming liquor at around 9.30 pm at a park at Block-29, Trilok Puri, when Appellants Ravi, Bhima and Munesh came to the spot and asked for drinks, which request was refused by the Complainants and the three persons started beating them. Bhima held Sunil and Munesh held Suraj while Ravi hit them with a pointed object. Sunil was hit on the chest and Suraj was hit on the stomach and back. Later the three fled away and on a complaint by someone at 100 number, the police came and the FIR was registered. As per MLC of Sunil, nature of injury was opined to be simple, while as per MLC of Suraj, injury was grievous in nature. FIR was earlier registered under Sections 324/34 IPC but later IO added 325 IPC. Charge Sheet was filed under Sections 325/307/34 IPC and after taking cognizance of the offences, learned MM, vide order dated 05.01.2015 committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
3. On 11.02.2015, charges were framed by the Court against the three accused under Sections 307/34 IPC. Prosecution evidence was led, in which 11 witnesses were examined, out of which PW-1 was a Doctor who prepared the MLC of Sunil; PW-2 was the Doctor who opined that Suraj was not fit for statement; PW-3 was injured Suraj; PW-4 was injured Sunil; PWs-5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 were police witnesses; PW-7 was the brother of Suraj; and PW-11 was the Doctor who identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Priyanka, who had prepared the MLC of Suraj. During trial, accused admitted two documents i.e. FIR and MLCs. Dr. Priyanka was dropped from the list of witnesses.
4. After conclusion of trial and hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Court convicted the Appellants for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC, vide judgment dated 28.09.2022 and vide order on sentence dated 25.11.2022, Appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.7,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
5. Common contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are that Appellants have been falsely implicated by the alleged victims Sunil and Suraj and they are innocent. All accused were on bail throughout the period of trial and never misused the liberty granted by the Court. FIR was registered in 2011 and Appellants have been facing agony of prolonged trial since then. Appellants have undergone 1 year 4 months of imprisonment up to January, 2024, excluding the remissions earned. They have clean antecedents and were involved in no other offence in the past. In fact, Complainants are known criminals of the area and have several FIRs pending against them, which is an undisputed fact.
6. In case of Appellant Munesh, it is stated that he like the other two Appellants belongs to the lowest strata of the society and was the sole
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 court reaffirmed that the discretionary power to suspend a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. requires a prima facie case and consideration of the gravity of the offense.
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at stage of pre-trial bail – Such relief can ....
Suspending a sentence for a serious offence like murder requires a rare demonstration of exceptional circumstances, without re-evaluating evidence during bail applications.
A court should generally suspend a fixed-term sentence pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
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....
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
