Arun Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 911-915 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 596-600 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 596-600 of 2001)
Petitioner: Arun Sinha
Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 911-915 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 596-600 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 596-600 of 2001)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 09, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 389 – Suspension of sentence – Conviction under sections 302, 307 with Sections 149, 148 IPC. On appeal, High Court suspending sentence on grounds that case hinged upon statement of only one witness. Held that it was too tenuous ground to suspend sentence . Appeal allowed, accused, however given liberty to move on other grounds. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Akhtari Bi (Smt) v. State of M.P. (JT 2001 (4) SC 40) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant and one Satish Kumar Shrivastava were subjected to an attack at 8.45 p.m. on 17.08.93 and both of them sustained injuries. Satish Kumar succumbed to those injuries. Some of the respondents arraigned in the appeal were found guilty of sections 302, 307 read with section 140 besides section 148 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life on the major count. When they filed an appeal before the High Court and moved for suspension of the sentence, learned single judge of the High Court passed the impugned orders suspending the sentence and releasing the convicted persons on bail. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the only ground on which learned single judge was persuaded to suspend the sentence was that the case rests mainly on the testimony of one witness only. Nonetheless learned single judge observed that “it will be too early to record any comment on the merits of the evidence of this single witness.” Yet, he thought it desirable that the convicted persons are released on bail. The aforesaid reasoning is too tenuous for suspending the sentence when a trial court had convicted a person under section 302 with or without the aid of section 34 of the IPC etc. There should be stronger reasons for suspending the sentence in such cases. This Court has mentioned so, time and again. One consideration which this Court has countenanced in such a situation is mentioned in the decision Akhtari Bi (Smt) v. State of M.P. (JT 2001 (4) SC 40). The said condition is not applicable in this case. But disposal of this appeal is without prejudice to the right of the appellants in availing themselves of the said position.
4. In the result, we set aside the impugned orders. This course is adopted without prejudice to the right of the convicted persons to move the High Court again on other grounds, if any, for suspending the sentence.
5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant and one Satish Kumar Shrivastava were subjected to an attack at 8.45 p.m. on 17.08.93 and both of them sustained injuries. Satish Kumar succumbed to those injuries. Some of the respondents arraigned in the appeal were found guilty of sections 302, 307 read with section 140 besides section 148 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life on the major count. When they filed an appeal before the High Court and moved for suspension of the sentence, learned single judge of the High Court passed the impugned orders suspending the sentence and releasing the convicted persons on bail. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the only ground on which learned single judge was persuaded to suspend the sentence was that the case rests mainly on the testimony of one witness only. Nonetheless learned single judge observed that “it will be too early to record any comment on the merits of the evidence of this single witness.” Yet, he thought it desirable that the convicted persons are released on bail. The aforesaid reasoning is too tenuous for suspending the sentence when a trial court had convicted a person under section 302 with or without the aid of section 34 of the IPC etc. There should be stronger reasons for suspending the sentence in such cases. This Court has mentioned so, time and again. One consideration which this Court has countenanced in such a situation is mentioned in the decision Akhtari Bi (Smt) v. State of M.P. (JT 2001 (4) SC 40). The said condition is not applicable in this case. But disposal of this appeal is without prejudice to the right of the appellants in availing themselves of the said position.
4. In the result, we set aside the impugned orders. This course is adopted without prejudice to the right of the convicted persons to move the High Court again on other grounds, if any, for suspending the sentence.
5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
