Ravi Kumar @ Mangoo vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 4961 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   CRL. A. No.683/2012
                            Date of Decision : 23.08.2012
RAVI KUMAR @ MANGOO                   ...... Appellant
                    Through: Ms. Shweta Garg &
                              Mr. Manish Garg, Advs.
                     Versus

STATE                                              ...... Respondent
                                Through:     Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.B. No.1108/2012

1. This is an application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is an absence of mens rea and the recovery of the knife, the weapon of offence, has not been done. It has also been urged by the learned counsel that the accused had suffered injuries on the head, however, the Prosecution has failed to explain as to how the accused suffered injuries on the head. Accordingly, it has been prayed since the Prosecution evidence against the petitioner, in proof of guilt, is weak and the petitioner has an arguable case,

therefore, he may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and enlarged on bail.

4. The learned APP has contested the claim of the appellant. It has been stated by him that the points for suspension of sentence raised by the appellant are all questions of merit, which must be considered when the matter is taken up finally for disposal. At the time of suspension of sentence, these aspects cannot be considered.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have gone through the records.

6. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to RI of 10 years, apart from a fine of ` 25,000/-. The appellant has just undergone a sentence of 2 years and 10 months and has still to undergo nearly 7 years of sentence. At the stage of suspension of sentence, what is relevant to be considered is the factum as to whether the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and the factum that the appellant has an arguable case on merit. The bird's eye view of the examination of evidence and the judgment must show that there is something palpable in the finding arrived at by the Trial Court while convicting the accused in the instant case. The appellant has admittedly been in custody during the course of trial, therefore, this point goes against the appellant that if he was not able to earn bail during the course of trial, his position is much worse today,

as there is a seal of judicial approval, so far as case of the Prosecution is concerned. As regards the points which have been urged with regard to the motive, non-recovery of the weapon of offence and the absence of mens rea are concerned, these all are essential questions which must be considered by the Court at the time of final disposal, rather than midway. For now, the application for suspension of sentence is only being considered.

7. Since the appellant is yet to undergo substantial portion of his sentence, keeping the gravity of offence and the fact that he was not on bail during the course of trial as well as nothing has been shown to the Court, which will inherently make the Court to draw an inference or make the Court to believe that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law, I, therefore, feel that he is not entitled to get the benefit of suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail.

8. For these reasons, I dismiss the application of the appellant for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail. Crl.A.683/2012

9. List the matter in the category of 'Regulars' on its own turn.

V.K. SHALI, J.

August 23, 2012 tp