ORDER :

Petitioners are the accused in S.C. No.1 of 2017 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kavarthi, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. By judgment dated 11-01-2023, they have been found guilty for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 324, 342, 307 and 506 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for periods ranging from 1 month to 10 years. The sentence of 10 years imprisonment is imposed for the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of the IPC. Petitioners pray that the conviction and sentence imposed against them be suspended pending disposal of the appeal.

2. I have heard Sri. P. Vijayabhanu, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners. I have also heard Sri. K.N. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, apart from Sri. S. Manu, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep on behalf of whom, a detailed objection to the application has been filed. I have also heard Adv. Ajit G. Anjarlekar for the defacto complainant. By a separate order of today, I have already admitted the appeal.

3. The application seeks to suspend the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners. The thrust of the arguments revolves around the conviction of the second accused, who was, on the date of judgment, a Member of Parliament from the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. He was elected as a Member of the Parliament in the year 2014 and again in 2019. According to the 2nd petitioner, if his conviction is not suspended, the consequence will be his disqualification as a Member of Parliament, resulting in serious implications.

4. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.04.2009. According to the prosecution, accused 1 to 12, along with other identifiable persons armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed the offence of rioting and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 after wrongfully confining him and PW11 at a place near the courtyard of the house by name Padippurakadu at Androth island. The prosecution further alleges that after the third accused pushed PW11 into a room in the house of PW5, the accused attacked PW1, and during the course of the transaction, the first accused directed the other accused to kill the said witness and thereafter brutally manhandled him with dangerous weapons including swordstick, chopper, iron rod, rafters, sticks etc. The second accused is alleged to have attacked PW1 with an iron rod. The injured PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Androth and thereafter, he was referred to the Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam, and the accused thus committed the offences alleged against them. Though as many as 37 accused were arrayed, the Sessions Court found accused 1 to 4 guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for various terms for the different offences, including ten years for the offence under section 307 IPC. 5th accused had expired during trial, while accused 6 to 37 were acquitted.

5. In support of the contentions seeking suspension of conviction, the learned Senior Counsel and the Counsel for the petitioners relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court. While the learned Additional Solicitor General also relied upon those decisions as well as a few other decisions to support his arguments, Adv. Ajith G. Anjerlaker also referred to decisions of different High Courts and contended that the conviction ought not to be suspended.

6. On an appreciation of the legal principles laid down in the various decisions cited, starting from K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584], Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali [(2007) 1 SCC 673], Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Another [(2007) 2 SCC 574], Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay [(2009) 5 SCC 787], Lily Thomas v. Union of India and Others [(2013) 7 SCC 653], Shyam Narain Pandey v. State of Uttar