Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Dhananjay Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2596 of 2024
Decided On : 27-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and context of appeal (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. appeal challenges trial court's conviction based on inadequate evidential support. (Para 2) |
| 3. defense argues lack of evidence and political motivation (Para 14) |
| 4. state presents evidence supporting prosecution (Para 15) |
| 5. court's considerations for suspension of sentence (Para 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 6. final conclusion on appeal and bail decision (Para 18 , 41) |
| 7. court emphasized need for substantive evidence linking to conviction. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
| INDEX |
| Contents |
| Conviction |
| Conviction details |
| Relief |
| Brief facts |
| Submissions on behalf of the appellants |
| Submissions on behalf of the State |
| Issue |
| Discussion & Conclusion about suspension of sentence |
| Discussion & Conclusion about stay of conviction |
In Re: Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension of Sentence) Under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. No. 02 of 2024
1. The above mentioned appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants-Dhananjay Singh and Santosh Vikram Singh against the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Special Judge, MP/MLA, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2020 ( State Vs. Dhananjay Singh and Another ) arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2020, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:
(b) Five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, three months' additional imprisonment.
(c) One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, one month's additional imprisonment.
(d) Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, forty five days’ additional imprisonment.
(e) Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, four months’ additional imprisonment.
However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Relief
2. By means of this application No. 02 of 2024, a prayer has been made to stay the operation and effect of the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2024 and order of sentence dated 06.03.2024 of the appellants and enlarge them on bail during pendency of this Criminal Appeal before this Court.
3. Heard Shri Sudhir Walia, learned Senior counsel, Shri Saghir Ahmad learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Kartikay Saran, Shri S.P. Singh, Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi and Shri Mohammad Raghib Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri J.K. Upadhyay, Shri Deepak Mishra, Shri Vikas Sahai and Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
Brief facts
4. The emanation of facts giving rise to the present Criminal Appeal as per prosecution case are that on 10.05.2022 at about 10:40 PM, an FIR was lodged by Shri Abhinav Singhal, complainant/informant (PW-1/CW-1), verbatim whereof is quoted here-under:
The prosecution must provide credible and corroborative evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere unverified claims and hostile testimonies are insufficient.
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.
The power to suspend a conviction should be exercised in rare cases only, and disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is not a sufficient ground for suspension of t....
The suspension of a conviction is an exception and not a rule, requiring a strong prima facie case and consideration of the broader implications for the electoral process and public trust in governan....
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the appellate court, pending an appeal by a convicted person and for reasons to be recorded in writing to order that the execution of a s....
Suspension of conviction may occur only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when significant injustice would result; the right to contest elections is not fundamental but statutory.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when deciding on the suspension of a conviction, the court should consider irreversible consequences, the individual's criminal antecedents, t....
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 ....
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
