AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 651 wordsAccused-appellant has laid this third application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. The appellant has also preferred an appeal before this Court challenging his conviction recorded by learned trial Court, which is pending consideration. Learned trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted appellant besides other accused-persons for offence punishable under Sections 307/149, 459, 148 and 447 and handed down maximum sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-.
On earlier occasions, appellant craved for suspension of sentence but the same was declined.
Pressing this fourth application for suspension of sentence, it is argued by learned counsel, Mr. Joshi, that out of maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment handed down by learned trial Court, appellant has already suffered sentence for almost 4 years and final hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future, therefore, solely on the ground of prolonged custody his sentence merits suspension. It is also argued by learned counsel that the trial Court, while indicting the appellant for the charged offences, has completely over-looked a very vital aspect about suspicion in recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. It is submitted by learned counsel that in para 26 of the judgment, learned trial Court has recorded a definite finding that recovery of pistol at the instance of information furnished by the appellant is doubtful yet the learned trial Court has indicted the appellant for the charged offence. It is also argued by learned counsel that as per medical evidence also, the injuries suffered by victims are not grievous in nature and are by and large simple injuries received due to splinters, allegedly fired from guns. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial Court has seriously erred in appreciation of evidence for convicting the appellant for serious offence under Section 307 IPC.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the prolonged custody of the appellant, I feel persuaded to accept this third application for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 17.12.2016, in Sessions Case No.29/2015 against appellant-applicant Ugrasen S/o Sh. Ram Lal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 26.04.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till disposal of the appeal, on the conditions indicated below:-
That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided.
That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial Court. In case the said accused-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
