Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Huidrom Bheigya Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur - Respondent
MC(Cril.A.) No. 5 of 2022, Ref:- Cril. A. No. 15 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2022
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. - Suspension of Sentence - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - [Section 4 of POCSO Act] - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court also referred to the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018 and relevant case laws such as Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat and Union of India v. Ram Samujh and another. The court emphasized the discretion of the appellate court to suspend the sentence and the need for judicious exercise of such discretion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. seeking to suspend the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) in a case related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and a fine. The petitioner filed an appeal and sought suspension of the sentence pending appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and the submissions of both the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor. The court referred to relevant case laws and emphasized the need for liberal consideration of suspension of sentence pending appeal, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court noted the practical reasons for the delay in disposing of the appeal and the petitioner's time spent in jail. The court found that the petitioner had an arguable case and decided to suspend the sentence subject to stringent conditions.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the petitioner's eligibility for suspension of sentence pending appeal, the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner, and the discretion of the appellate court in such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, relevant case laws, and the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the delay in disposing of the appeal, and the petitioner's time spent in jail.
Final Decision: The court decided to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner pending appeal, subject to stringent conditions including bail, reporting requirements, and restrictions on criminal activities and residence. The court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the appeal.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the judgment of conviction dated 9.10.2017 and the order of sentence dated 12.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.4 of 2016 and to release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
2. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.4 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West, was convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the judgment dated 9.10.2017 and listed the case on 12.10.2017 for sentence hearing. On 12.10.2017, the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge, Imphal West and after hearing the petitioner and his counsel, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The learned Special Judge also ordered that the said fine amount if deposited, the same shall be given to the victim girl as compensation. That apart, the learned Special Judge also recommended for provision of victim compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakh under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. to the victim. The learned Special Judge also ordered the period which has already undergone by the petitioner in the judicial custody during the period of investigation as well as during the trial, if any, shall be set-off from the sentence awarded.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, he has filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2021 before this Court. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed petition seeking to suspend the sentence stating that he has a very good case on merits and is likely to succeed in the appeal filed by him.
4. Ms. L. Sillori, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are lot of infirmities in the impugned judgment and that the petitioner has got good case on merits to succeed. He would submit that the petitioner is in jail since from lodging of the FIR which was about 6 years and 8 months and have to spend another about 4 years and 6 months in the jail. He would submit that spending the time in the jail, there was no criminal record of the petitioner.
5. Ms. Sillori, the learned counsel then submitted that release of the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence shall not cause any inconvenience or prejudice to the prosecution.
6. Ms. Sillori, the learned counsel next submitted that the appeal would not be taken up for hearing in the near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal and that the petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.
7. Ms. L. Sillori, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that detention of the petitioner during pendency of the appeal is a severe punishment to all his family members and thus prayed for suspension of sentence pending appeal.
8. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to suspension of sentence in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court. He would submit that the petitioner has no good case or ground in the appeal to set aside the conviction and the appeal is very much likely to be dismissed. He would submit that the offence committed by the petitioner is very grave and heinous offence committed upon a minor girl of just 9 years which is leaving a deep emotional scar upon the life of the victim which will remain for her whole life. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
10. The petitioner was convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Upon hearing the petitioner, the learned
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal consideration for suspension of sentence pending appeal, the exercise of judicious discretion in granting bail and suspending sentences....
Suspension of sentence for fixed-term convictions should be granted liberally, barring exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the necessity of the victim's testimony in sexual offense cases.
Suspension of sentence during appeal requires assessment of prima facie merits and exceptional circumstances, balancing incarceration duration against the nature of the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence of a person convicted under the NDPS Act pending appeal, subject to the conditi....
When a convict is serving a fixed-term sentence and their appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly, courts should liberally exercise discretion to suspend the sentence, particularly if the convict has....
Suspension of sentence should be considered liberally unless there is any statutory restriction, and the appellate Court has the discretion to suspend a sentence awarded under the NDPS Act, emphasizi....
The court established that under Section 389 CrPC, the suspension of sentences is warranted in cases of significant delays in appeal hearings to uphold the rights of the accused and prevent injustice....
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
