The discretion to stay a conviction depends on the specific consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed, and it should be exercised judiciously in rare cases.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - Applicant - appellant, Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu, has preferred the present application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking stay of his conviction imposed vide judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2016 passed in FIR No. 127 dated 30.06.2002 under Sections 307, 452, 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC registered with Police Station, City Khanna, District Ludhiana, whereby the applicant - appellant alongwith co-accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years alongwith fine under the provisions of IPC as detailed in order of conviction dated 18.11.2016.

2. Succinctly, the present FIR has been registered on the basis of statement of complainant - Azadwinder Singh (PW-2), who was declared fit to make statement on 30.06.2002, by Dr. Beant Singh Bhatia (PW-8) vide his opinion EX.PW-4/D, pursuant to an application moved by ASI Baldev Singh (PW-4), Police Station, City, Khanna. The complainant got recorded his statement to the effect that on 29.06.2002 at about 04.00 pm, when he alongwith Harminder Singh (PW-5) and Rajanjeet Singh was present in his shop, situated at Amloh Road, Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu alongwith co-accused and armed with deadly weapons viz. Kirpans, Iron Rods, Gandasi and Danda, came on Maruti Zen car bearing HR-20F/5521, Esteem car bearing PB-2L/8397 and motor cycle bearing PB-ZLA/5361 and started inflicting injuries to the complainant with a common intention to kill him. The applicant Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu inflicted three danda blows on the back, chest and head of the complainant. The other co-accused also inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the complainant. The complainant was saved by Harminder Singh and Rajanjeet Singh from the clutches of the accused. The complainant stated that motive of the incident was that Rupinder Pal Singh (one of the assailants) wanted to extract money from him. As per the MLR dated 29.06.2002, out of 18 injuries on the person of complainant - Azadwinder Singh, Injury Nos.2 to 6, 8 & 10 were shown to be inflicted with sharp edged weapons. Injury Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 10 to 13 were advised for X-ray. On the receipt of X-ray report, injury Nos.2 and 10 were declared to be grievous.

3. Investigation was set in motion. At the first instance, applicant - appellant, Yadwinder Singh @ Yadu was found to be innocent and his name was put in column No.2 of final report. Challan was presented against six accused. Copies were supplied. Offence under Section 307 IPC having been exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 23.12.2003. Charges were framed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, however, in the interregnum, Rupinder Singh @ Gandhi and Randip Singh @ Nannu, died; and accused Jagpal Singh and Jagjit Singh were declared Proclaimed persons. As such, co-accused Inderjeet Singh and Surinder Pal Singh were tried at the first instance.

4. During the course of trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicant - appellant. The application was accepted vide order dated 05.02.2013 and the present applicant was ordered to be summoned for facing trial alongwith co-accused. Charges were re-framed against all the three accused. The applicant -appellant approached this Court by filing CRR No. 1901 of 2013 titled Yadwinder Singh @ Jaddu Vs. State of Punjab' wherein vide order dated 01.07.2013, operation of the order dated 05.02.2013, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicant - appellant had been accepted, was stayed. Later on, amended charges were again framed on production of co-accused Jagpal Singh who was lodged in Nabha Jail in case FIR No.70 dated 13.06.2007, registered with Police Station, Amloh and de novo trial commenced.

5. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses before closing its evidence. Incriminating material appearing in prosecution evidence