Allahabad High Court
Santram Shrivas vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81045
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10481 of 2023
Appellant :- Santram Shrivas
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
(Order on Appeal)
List this appeal in due course.
(Order on Suspension of Sentence Application no.1 of 2023)
Applicant-Appellant, namely, Santram Shrivas has applied for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal, arising against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 11.08.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.1, Jhansi in Criminal Case No.16982 of 2022, CNR No.UPJS04-021279-2022, titled State Vs. Santram Shrivas, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 323, 504, 354(Kha) I.P.C, followed by imposition of sentence of five years, under Section 354 (Kha) I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5000/- and one year, under Sections 323 & 504 I.P.C. each with fine of Rs.500/-, with further condition that in the event of non - deposit of fine(s), convict shall undergo further imprisonment of two months and one month, respectively.
The applicant-convict was prosecuted through Case Crime No.196 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 354 (Kha) I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Prem Nagar, District- Jhansi.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2023 is not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence as material discrepancies in the prosecution case have been ignored by the trial court. Learned counsel submits that applicant has been sentenced for commission of different offences, who has been inflicted with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 354(Kha) I.P.C. along with fine. Learned counsel has pointed out that applicant was extended the concession of regular bail vide order dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure No.1), during the pendency of trial and the same was never misused by the applicant, who after conviction on 11.08.2023 has been sent in custody to serve the sentence. According to learned counsel, the appeal is likely to succeed on the strength of the grounds raised by the applicant, therefore, he prays that the sentence imposed upon the convict be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
While opposing the above prayer, learned A.G.A. has argued that appellant was involved in the occurrence dated 20.05.2022 and the trial against him commenced after framing of charges. According to learned A.G.A., the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the convict and the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2023 is based upon correct appreciation of material on record. However, it is not disputed by learned A.G.A. that during trial, the appellant-applicant was on regular bail and the said concession was never misused by him.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that convict stood the trial and never misused the concession of bail. That apart, after the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2023, applicant has been sent in custody to serve the sentence, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal is not likely to get matured for final hearing in near future. Therefore, further detention of the applicant behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose, and in case, the sentence is not suspended, the appeal may be rendered infructuous. Thus, considering the period of more than eight months undergone by the applicant after conviction, in addition to the custodial period of one year and two months as an undertrial, out of total awarded sentence of five years, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the sentence, during the pendency of the appeal.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal, the remaining sentence of the applicant- appellant is suspended, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.
Further, it is clarified that if, the fine imposed upon the applicant has not been deposited, its recovery shall also remain stayed.
The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Raj
