SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(P&H) 553

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Kumar, J.
Baldev Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 3535 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 763-SB of 2003.
Decided On : 12 May, 2004

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants :Mr. APS Deol, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sukant Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

The court may grant suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal based on the age of the accused and the likelihood of the appeal taking time for final disposal.

Headnote:

Suspension of Sentence - Indian Penal Code - The court considered the application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal for three accused convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. The court granted the suspension of sentence for two of the accused based on their age and the likelihood of the appeal taking time for final disposal, while dismissing the application for the third accused.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal for their conviction under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. Two of the accused had already undergone a significant portion of their sentence and were less than 21 years of age at the time of the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted the suspension of sentence for two of the accused based on their age and the likelihood of the appeal taking time for final disposal, while dismissing the application for the third accused.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants should be granted suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal, considering their age and the stage of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age of the accused and the likelihood of the appeal taking time for final disposal as key factors in granting the suspension of sentence for two of the accused.

Final Decision: The court granted the suspension of sentence for two of the accused, while dismissing the application for the third accused.

ORDER

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is an application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal in respect of three accused, namely, Baldev Singh, Rajinder Singh and Tejinderpal Singh. All the accused have been convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine. On 9.9.2003, the application filed by the applicants was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that Rajinder Singh and Tejinderpal Singh have already undergone one year four months of sentence and on the date of commission of the offence, they were less than 21 years of age. According to the learned counsel, once the sentence is 10 years or less than 10 years and the accused is less than 21 years of age, then he may be entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity, the Act). He has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 486. The learned counsel has argued that Baldev Singh has already undergone one year and six months of sentence and would be entitled to the grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal because on merits he is likely to be acquitted and the appeal is likely to take some time for final disposal.

3. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that the prayer made in the application in respect of Rajinder Singh and Tejinderpal Singh is liable to be accepted. At this stage, it is not possible to express any considered opinion as to whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could be given to Rajinder Singh and Tejinderpal Singh. However, considering the fact that the appeal is likely to take some time and they had already undergone one year and four months of sentence, along with the fact that at the time of commission of the offence, they were less than 21 years of age, it would serve the ends of justice if they are granted bail during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, it is directed that their sentence shall remain suspended. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Deputy Magistrate, Moga. However, I do not find any ground to suspend the sentences of Baldev Singh and his application is dismissed.

4. No stay with regard to fine.

Application dismissed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top