Ramji Prasad Vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2000
(S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3519/99)
Petitioner: Ramji Prasad
Respondent: Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2000
(S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3519/99)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 18, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 389(2) – Suspension – Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC – Appeal filed – Sentence suspended and bail granted – No reasons given. Held that it is only in exceptional cases that benefit of suspension is given. Orders set aside. Accused at liberty to satisfy that his case is of exceptional nature.(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the brother of one Madan Lal who was murdered on a day when his father Kanahya Lal was also murdered. First Respondent was one of the accused charge-sheeted by the investigat-ing agency for the aforesaid murder. We are told that one of the six assailants is still absconding and hence the trial proceeded against the remaining five accused. Four were acquitted and first Respondent was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is found that he used a gun to shoot the deceased. The trial court convicted him as per the judgment dated 15.7.1999. He filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court and at the first instance itself he was granted bail as per order dated 14.9.99 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Absolutely no reason is shown by the learned Single Judge for adopting this exceptional course in a case where an accused was found guilty by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the Appellant submitted that this case can fall within the exception for suspending the sen-tence. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on the other hand, narrated a number of broad features to support his contention that under no circumstances suspension of sentence can be granted in favour of this Appellant. We refrain from considering the merits of the rival contentions, for, it is open to the first Respondent to move the High Court and satisfy the High Court that his case would fall within the exception wherein there is justification for suspending the sen-tence.
5. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the brother of one Madan Lal who was murdered on a day when his father Kanahya Lal was also murdered. First Respondent was one of the accused charge-sheeted by the investigat-ing agency for the aforesaid murder. We are told that one of the six assailants is still absconding and hence the trial proceeded against the remaining five accused. Four were acquitted and first Respondent was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is found that he used a gun to shoot the deceased. The trial court convicted him as per the judgment dated 15.7.1999. He filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court and at the first instance itself he was granted bail as per order dated 14.9.99 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Absolutely no reason is shown by the learned Single Judge for adopting this exceptional course in a case where an accused was found guilty by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the Appellant submitted that this case can fall within the exception for suspending the sen-tence. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on the other hand, narrated a number of broad features to support his contention that under no circumstances suspension of sentence can be granted in favour of this Appellant. We refrain from considering the merits of the rival contentions, for, it is open to the first Respondent to move the High Court and satisfy the High Court that his case would fall within the exception wherein there is justification for suspending the sen-tence.
5. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
