Pushap Raj Alias Sanju and Others vs State of H.P.

V.K. Sharma, J.

Cr. M.P. No. 262 of 2014

Rejoinder not to be filed. Heard. The applicant/appellant (convict No. 2) Raj Kiran alias Raju has moved the present application u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence. He along with the non-applicant/appellant (co-convict No. 1) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (camp at Sundernagar) for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). Both of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year each u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

The prayer for suspension is based mainly on the grounds that the convicts are real brothers and the only earning members in the family and both of them are in custody since their arrest in the case on 14.5.2012, that is, for a period of over two years. It is further submitted that convict No. 2 is suffering from disability to the extent of 52% as per disability certificate filed along with the application as Annexure P-1.

The application for suspension is opposed on behalf of the respondent/State mainly on the ground that the offence(s) for which convict No. 2 has been sentenced is of serious nature and he does not deserve indulgence of this Court in suspending the sentence, pending appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for convict No. 2 and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records. However, without going into an elaborate discussion of the rival contentions on behalf of the parties so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case of the parties, I am satisfied that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the two grounds highlighted herein above, firstly that convict No. 2 is in custody right from the time of investigation, trial and ultimate conviction for a period of over two years and that he is also suffering from disability of 52% owing to poliomyelitis, it shall not be unsafe to suspend the substantive sentences imposed upon him by the learned trial Court till disposal of the appeal filed by him along with his co-convict, which raises arguable questions of law and fact and shall take its own time for coming on board for final disposal. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the substantive sentences imposed upon convict No. 2 under the impugned judgment/order dated 20.1.2014/23.1.2014 shall stand suspended till disposal of the main appeal, subject to his filing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge and depositing the amounts of fine, if not already deposited in that Court within thirty days from today.

In case, convict No. 2 indulges in any criminal or unlawful activities during the period of suspension of sentence, it shall be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order in accordance with law.

The application stands disposed of.

Copy Dasti.