Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Pankaj Jain, JJ.
Anil & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-19656-2021 in CRA-D-14-DB-2017
Decided On : 29-03-2022
Section 389 Cr.P.C. - Suspension of Sentence - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 216 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 216. The court also referred to the case law of 'Dharampal vs. State of Haryana' and the principles laid down in 'Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar' (2020) 2 SCC 118. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power to grant bail and the factors to be considered in such decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The applicant had been convicted for his involvement in a murder case where he had driven the motorcycle used in the crime. The prosecution presented evidence of the applicant's active participation in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's argument of not actively participating in the crime was not tenable as the evidence had been considered and answered by the trial court. The court also emphasized that the power to grant bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie view of the involvement of the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the applicant's eligibility for suspension of sentence, considering his period of custody and the nature of the offence. The court also addressed the argument of the applicant not being accused of causing injury to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the discretionary nature of the power to grant bail, the principles laid down in 'Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar' (2020) 2 SCC 118, and the finding that the applicant's plea of not actively participating in the crime had been considered and answered by the trial court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence, stating that the applicant was not entitled to the grant at that stage. However, the court directed the listing of the main appeal for final disposal, considering the incarceration suffered by the applicant.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C., applicant/appellant No.1 namely Anil son of Vijay Singh seeks suspension of sentence, during the pendency of the present appeal.
2. He has been convicted in FIR No. 222 dated 31st August 2013 (registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment and order dated 30th September, 2016 Custody Certificate has been placed on record. Applicant/ appellant No.1 is stated to have undergone actual sentence of 6 years, 9 months and 4 days.
3. Counsel for applicant/appellant No.1 submits that keeping in view the period of custody, the applicant is entitled for the concession of suspension of sentence in the light of ratio of law laid down by this Court in 'Dharampal vs. State of Haryana', 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600.
4. Further, it has been submitted that applicant/appellant No.1 cannot be said to have actively participated in the crime as no injury on the body of the deceased has been attributed to him. The only role assigned to the present applicant/appellant is that he had driven the motor cycle to the Tehsil complex on which the co-convicts were pillion riders. Thus, he claims that applicant/appellant No.1 having already undergone custody of more than 6 years and 9 months deserves concession of suspension of sentence.
5. The prayer made by applicant/appellant No.1 has been vehemently opposed by the State Counsel as well as the Counsel for the complainant.
6. Ld. State Counsel as well as Counsel for the Complainant have argued that the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was given effect to, dis-entitles applicant/appellant No.1 from grant of the concession of discretionary relief. It has been further argued that the conduct of the convict is enough to dismiss the present application.
7. Having heard counsel for the parties, we find that as per Prosecution two motorcycles entered the Panchayat Bhawan, one of the motorcycle was driven by Anil s/o Vijay r/o Bhattu Kalan and Vijay Singh s/o Nathu Ram and Ravi s/o Vijay Singh were sitting as pillion riders, whereas the other motorcycle was driven by Chintu @ Sukhdeep s/o Shankar Lal and Suresh s/o Raj Kumar and Shankar Lal s/o Nathu Ram were sitting as pillion riders. They all after getting down from their motorcycles came towards them. Ravi and Vijay were armed with Gandasi. Shakar and Suresh caught hold of the hands of the deceased from behind and Shankar exhorted that this advocate be killed, upon which Vijay attacked the deceased with the Gandasi, which hit the deceased on right side of his neck and thereafter Ravi also with the Gandasi, which he was holding in his hand, gave a blow on right side of the neck of the deceased. A third blow was again given on the neck of the deceased. He (complainant) further got recorded that the neck of the deceased hung on one side. On their raising alarm, the assailants fled from the spot with their respective weapons on their respective motorcycles.
8. It has also come on record that co-convict Ravi i.e. brother of the present applicant/appellant, attacked sons of deceased on 3rd December, 2008. FIR No.235 dated 3rd December, 2008 was registered against the offenders for the offences punishable under Sections 435, 323, 506, 452 of the IPC, at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. Ravi was convicted on 5th August, 2013 in the said FIR and the same was upheld up to this Court. Ravi while on bail in the said FIR along with his father attacked Suresh Kumar (now deceased) and caused as many as 21 injuries on 8th April, 2009. Both Ravi and his father (the co-convicts/ brother and father of the present applicant) were convicted on 14th December, 2011 in FIR No.74 dated 8th April, 2009 of Police Station Bhattu Kalan, for the offences punishable under S
The power to grant bail is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of the accusations, severity of the punishment, and prima facie view of the involvem....
The exercise of the power to grant bail and suspension of sentence involves the balancing of numerous factors, including the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and a prima facie v....
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.
Suspension of sentence during appeal requires assessment of prima facie merits and exceptional circumstances, balancing incarceration duration against the nature of the conviction.
Suspension of sentence requires strong grounds demonstrating a fair chance of acquittal; mere incarceration duration does not suffice for bail.
Suspension of sentence granted based on long-term incarceration and lack of immediate appeal prospects in a serious case of culpable homicide.
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
