Back
SHEEL NAGU, S.K.PALO
Raghuwar Singh @ Raghuveer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - Prolonged post-conviction incarceration and delay in hearing are given primacy in deciding suspension of sentence for life convicts [27000281550017][27000281550018]. - The court may suspend the remaining sentence where the convict has suffered substantial incarceration, has no criminal antecedents, did not misuse bail, and there is little near-future possibility of final hearing, balancing gravity of offence with post-conviction factors [27000281550013][27000281550014][27000281550017]. - Reformation and humanitarian considerations, including the absence of compensation mechanisms for wrongful confinement, are discussed as part of the broader jurisprudence on sentencing and bail in life-convict scenarios [27000281550020][27000281550021][27000281550019]. - The decision relies on past conduct, age, and efforts to expedite hearing, as well as public-interest concerns about vendetta and public confidence in justice [27000281550013][27000281550018]. - The order in this case suspended the remaining jail term until final decision of the appeal upon bail conditions, clarifying the procedural aspects of interim suspension [27000281550028].
1. 1. I.A. No.2036/2015 filed for urgent hearing of I.A. No.2388/2014 (repeat application under section 389, CrPC) is considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. I.A.No.2388/2014 repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of sole appellant filed under section 389 of CrPC, is taken up.
3. The reply filed by the State to I.A. No.2388/2014 objecting to the prayer for suspension of sentence is also considered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of the apex Court in the cases of Kamal v. State of Haryana, reported in (2006)1 SCC (Cr.) 757, Fazal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012)5 SCC 752, and Sunil Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, reported in (2014)8 SCC 868, prays for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment being suffered by the sole appellant on account of the impugned judgment and conviction dated 5.8.2004 in S.T. No.268/2003 by First Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the said prayer raises the following grounds ;
“1. The appellant has suffered more than 11 years of rigorous imprisonment as against the life sentence awarded.
2. The appellant has be
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
