Dharambir and Others vs State of Haryana

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present application has been moved by the applicant-petitioner Sachin Sanjeev praying for stay of the order passed by the Courts below whereby he along with his co. accused was convicted under sections 323, 324, 325 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment between nine months to five years for the aforementioned charges. The applicant and his accomplices filed revision petition before this Court. The aforesaid revision petition was admitted vide order dated March 28,2012 and he was released on bail. The execution of the sentence imposed upon him has been suspended.

Now the applicant moved an application for suspending/staying the order of conviction.

The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid application are required to be noticed in a short. The applicant was a sitting Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nangli Godha on the date of the conviction. He was ordered to be suspended from the aforesaid post during the pendency of regular inquiry vide order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari.

For the proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the present application, it is indispensable to refer the facts and evidence available on the record. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the fateful day i.e. 16.3.2001, Ved Parkash (complainant) was going to Rajiaki for bringing bajri by his camel cart. Some boys of the village and Sarpanch Sachin Sanjeev and other co-accused were standing outside the school. Examination was going in the school. A warning was given by the school teacher to the students not to create any disturbance. At about 3.00/3.30 p.m. while returning from village Rajiaki to his village with Bajri loaded in camel cart and on reaching near to the fields of Sarpanch, he saw Sachin Sanjeev along with other co-accused on the road. Sachin Sanjeev (the present applicant) gave lathi blow on the right foot of the complainant-Ved Parkash and other co-accused persons also gave beatings to the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the applicant was found innocent and he was kept in column No. 2 of the challan. However, the applicant was summoned as an accused on moving application by the prosecution u/s 319 CrPC. He further submits that the medical evidence on record does not suggest any commission of offence and even if the accusations of the prosecution are accepted in toto, moreover the offence does not involve any moral turpitude and, prayed that conviction of the applicant may be stayed. Strengthening his arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in K. Bhagyanath v. State 2003(1) RCR (Cri) 145, Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 836 and Jasvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the stay of conviction on the premise that since the applicant has caused injury(s) to the complainant and, therefore, he does not deserve the aforesaid benefit.

The learned State Counsel also reiterates the arguments raised by learned counsel for the complainant.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present application.

The incident took place in the year 2001 which has no concern with the public life of the applicant. The case projected by the prosecution does not suggest that the applicant took advantage of his official position as Sarpanch in the alleged crime. Moreover, the offence(s) under which the applicant was convicted does not involve the moral turpitude which put embargo on the applicant to hold the post of Sarpanch. Further more, in the case where the offence involves moral turpitude, the Court can stay the conviction under exceptional circumstances. However, in the present case, the offence(s) does not involve any moral turpitude, nor there is any evidence to suggest that the applicant had taken the advantage of his official position in the alleged crime. The controversy in hand is squarely covered by the reliance placed on the judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant.

The appeal stands admitted which is still pending for adjudication and sentence was ordered to be suspended during the pendency of appeal.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application moved by the applicant is allowed. The conviction qua the applicant shall not be operative during the pendency of appeal. Needless to say that the order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari will not be operative in the light of aforesaid observations.