Vikram Baljit Singh vs State of Punjab

Surinder Gupta, J.—The applicant-appellant faced trial in case bearing FIR No. 147, dated 19.08.2009 for offence punishable u/s 307, 353, 186 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur and was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s 353 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. He filed appeal bearing number CRA-S-1295-SB of 2014 which was admitted for hearing on 21.03.2014 and the sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of this appeal was suspended.

In the instant application the appellant has sought suspension of his conviction vide judgment dated 28.02.2014 making out elaborately a case that the prosecution has not been able to make out the commission of offence u/s 353 IPC against the applicant-appellant.

The learned counsel for the applicant-appellant during the course of arguments has relied upon the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Retti Deenabandhu and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been observed that the object of challenging the conviction is to avoid the other consequences flowing from conviction and also to erase the stigma resulting from conviction. He has also relied upon the observation made by Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the case of K. Bhagyanath vs. State reported as 2003(1) Crimes 1 and observations made by this Court in the case of Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 531.

The learned State counsel has argued that the sentence awarded has already been suspended. Non-suspension of conviction will not entail any consequences in the present case. The appellant has sought suspension of conviction by trying to make out a case on merit which will be looked into only at the time of final decision of the appeal.

The reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant on the observation of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Retti Deenabandhu (supra) is not helpful to raise the contention with regard to the suspension of sentence. In that case the appeal of appellants was dismissed without going into the merits as the appellant had already undergone the total sentence of imprisonment. It was in that context the Hon''ble Supreme Court had observed that a convicted person challenges his conviction in appeal not only to avoid undergoing punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction but he also wants that other legal consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma attached due to conviction should be wiped out in the event of the appeal being accepted.

In other two citations referred by learned counsel for the appellant the appellants were facing the consequences of dismissal from services. It is nowhere the case of the appellant that he is also government employee.

The learned counsel for the appellant has made out an elaborate case based on merit for seeking the suspension of sentence with the plea that the case of the prosecution is false, riddled with ambiguity, contradictions etc. This point will be seen at the time of final decision of the appeal. Any expression of opinion on merits of the appeal at this stage will not be in the interest of the parties. This application has no merits at this stage and is dismissed.