IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Sachin Kumar @ Subash - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-46671 of 2022 in CRA-S-766 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Suspension of Sentence - Criminal Law - The court allowed the suspension of the sentence for the appellant who had served 1/3rd of the substantive sentence of 5 years, pending the appeal, based on the consideration that the appeal was not likely to be taken up for final hearing anytime soon and further incarceration was not warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for an offence under Section 379A IPC, involving the snatching of a mobile phone. The appellant had served 1 year and 9 months of the sentence. The appellant claimed to have been falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the suspension of the sentence, considering that the appeal was not likely to be taken up for final hearing anytime soon and further incarceration was not warranted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's sentence should be suspended pending the appeal, considering the time served and the likelihood of the appeal being heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the time served by the appellant, the likelihood of the appeal being heard, and the absence of a need for further incarceration, and allowed the suspension of the sentence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the suspension of the sentence for the appellant pending the appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
CRM-46671-2022
This is an application on behalf of the applicant-appellant Sachin Kumar @ Subash son of Sh. Dharambir Singh for suspension of his substantive sentence. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2022 as under:-
| Sr.No. | Offence under Sections | Imprisonment Fine | In default of fine imprisonment |
| 1. | 379A IPC | RI for a period of 05 Years | Rs.25,000/- SI for a period of 03 Months |
The appeal has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2022.
2. The custody certificate dated 03.05.2023 has been placed on record as per which the accused has undergone 01 year and 09 months out of his awarded sentence of 05 years.
3. The brief facts of the case are that while complainant Anupama was standing in front of the temple and talking on the mobile phone, one unknown person came on a motor cycle , snatched her phone from her hand and thereafter fled away. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the applicant was arrested and after completion of the investigation the report under Section 173 Cr.PC was filed. On the culmination of the trial, the applicant came to be convicted and sentenced as above.
4. The Counsel for the applicant-appellant inter alia contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. His identification has not been established in accordance with law as there were material contradictions between the statements of witnesses and documents prepared during the course of investigation. There was no evidence regarding ownership of the mobile phone. As the applicant had undergone 01 year and 09 months of imprisonment out of the awarded sentence of 05 years, he was entitled to the concession of suspension of sentence.
5. The learned Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the grounds raised by him in the present application have been dealt with comprehensively by the Trial Court while convicting him. He contends that the criminal antecedents of the applicant did not entitle him to the concession as prayed for. He however concedes the custody period undergone by the applicant.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly the appeal pertains to the year 2022 and is therefore not likely to be taken up for final hearing anytime soon. The applicant has otherwise, undergone total custody of 01 year & 09 Months out of the substantive sentence of 05 years. The applicant has thus undergone 1/3rd of his substantive sentence of 05 years. Therefore, his further incarceration in the present case is not warranted.
8. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case the present application is allowed and the sentence of the applicant-appellant-Sachin Kumar @ Subash son of Sh. Dharambir Singh is suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. If the applicant/appellant indulges in the commission of any offence while on bail, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail granted vide this order.
CRM-46671-2022 stands disposed of.
Order accordingly.
The court may suspend a sentence pending appeal if the appellant has served a significant portion of the sentence and the appeal is not likely to be heard soon, and further incarceration is not warra....
The court established that the suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. requires consideration of the strength of the evidence and the duration of custody.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the accused shows circumstances such as prior bail status, marriage to the prosecutrix, and delays in FIR filing, indicating a potential for prolonged appeal.
The court allows suspension of sentence for a juvenile convicted under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the lengthy appeal process.
The court's decision was primarily based on the consideration of the long period of incarceration already undergone, the appeal not likely to be heard in the near future, and the fairly arguable poin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of confessions without the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and the improper admission of call deta....
The court should not deal with the merits of the case in detail at the stage of consideration of suspension of sentence, but a prima facie view must be taken. The applicant must establish grounds for....
The court has the discretion to suspend the custodial part of a sentence under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, considering the appellant's innocence and other relevant factors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.