Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3049

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Munnu Singh And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7985 of 2023
Decided on : 22-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Om Narayan Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Umesh Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar Kushwaha
For the Respondent: Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A.,Sanjay Singh

Suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) requires exceptional circumstances, focusing on the seriousness of the offense and implications for public interest.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 389(1) - Suspension of conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for serious offences including murder and attempted murder - Application for suspension of conviction during the pendency of appeal filed; court emphasizes that suspension is not routine and should be exceptional - Discussed factors consider the nature and gravity of offence and its implications for the appellant and public interest (Paras 5, 6, 8).

(B) Judicial discretion - The court must record reasons for suspending conviction, ensuring careful assessment of case relevance. (Paras 4, 5). Fact of the case: The appellant was working as a Clerk and was convicted for life imprisonment plus other sentences related to sections under the IPC and Arms Act. He was released on bail but suspended from job due to the conviction, affecting his sole means of support (Paras 2, 6).

Findings of Court:
Conviction and sentence suspended pending appeal, noting the conviction does not relate to moral turpitude nor does it embarrass the appellant in his position as a government servant (Paras 7, 8).

Issues: Whether to suspend conviction and assess broader implications for both the appellant and the public.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension of conviction considered appropriate based on no moral turpitude in the conviction.

Result: Application allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence is suspended pending the appeal.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2)
2. arguments supporting suspension of conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis on grounds for suspension. (Para 6 , 7)
4. ratio decidendi on suspension of conviction. (Para 8)
5. conclusion and order for the appeal. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

In Ref.: Criminal Misc. Suspension of Conviction and Sentence Application No. 16 of 2025

Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant application at the instance of the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, Munnu Singh son of Sarnam Singh Thakur, under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the suspension of conviction and sentence of the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 450 of 2008 (State Vs. Munnu Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 33A of 2006 under Section 304 , 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and Session Trial No. 451 of 2008 (State Vs. Ramautar) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2006, under Section 25 of ARMS ACT , Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 15,000/- each under Section 304 (Part-I)/34 I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment, seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 307 /34 I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment and one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 504 IPC, in default thereof to undergo two months additional imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 submits that the conviction and sentence vide order dated 13.07.2023 was assailed before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023 which Appeal has been admitted and is pending consideration. The Applicant/ Appellant No. 1 was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023, however, the conviction and sentence of the order was not suspended.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 further submits that the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 was working as a Clerk in the Office of the Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and consequent to his implication in the FIR and subsequent conviction and sentence was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.07.2023 and Charge-Sheeted by the Department vide charge-sheet dated 28.03.2024 on the ground that though he has been bailed out but the conviction and sentence has not been kept in abeyance. Resultantly, the suspension order continues to be operative and has not been revoked. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant is the sole bread earner of the family and is suffering immensely on account of his continued suspension. The Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has not misused the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang , reported in 1995(2) SCC 513 [1995 lawsuit (SC) 113] and on the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab and another , reported in 2007(2) SCC 574 to buttress the submission that under Section 389 Cr.P.C. conviction of sentence can both be suspended during pendency of the Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the records as also the case laws cited at the Bar. We are of the considered opinion that the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C., however, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an Appeal to challenge his conviction the Court should not suspend the operation of the conviction and the Court