Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sham Lal vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another on 29 December, 2021
Sr.No. 35
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl(A(S) No. 22/2021
CrlM No. 2445/2021
Reserved on: 28.12.2021
Pronounced on: 29.12.2021
Sham Lal ........Petitioner/appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Sonika Parihar, Advocate
V/S
Union territory of J&K and another ........ Respondent(s)
Through:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL MANHAS, JUDGE
O R D E R
29. 12. 2021
1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2021 and order of
sentence dated 22.12.2021, rendered by the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Rajouri in Challan titled 'State of J&K vs
Sham Lal' in FIR No. 228/2013, whereby the appellant has
been found guilty for commission of offences punishable
under Section 420/471 RPC and has been accordingly
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and a fine
of Rs. 20,000/- for offence under Section 420 and one year
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under
Section 471 RPC. It has been averred that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 passed by the trial Court is
against the law and facts and not supported by any evidence;
the judgment is relied upon presumptions and assumptions
and no concrete findings has been returned from all angles,
neither the ingredients of Section 420 RPC nor of Section 471
RPC have been made out as the element of cheating is
missing and no forgery alleged has been proved against the
appellant even on the face of the legally unsustainable
evidence; the appellant/petitioner has been convicted for
offence under Sections 420/471 RPC; the appellant has faced
a protracted trial for eight years and has been sentenced to
heavy imprisonment of three years and one year respectively;
the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on
record and has drawn wrong inferences; the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence is totally against the well
established principles of law which cannot sustain the test of
judicial scrutiny of this Court.
2. Along with the appeal, the appellant has preferred an
application for staying the operation of impugned judgment of
conviction dated 21.12.2021 and order of sentence dated
22.12.2021 on the grounds which are canvassed in the memo
of appeal, and moreso it has been averred that the appellant
is a handicapped person as his one leg has been amputated
and he is totally crippled; he is suffering from heart ailment
and is a patient of hypertension with high blood pressure; one
of the sons is handicapped and deaf and dumb and is fully
dependent upon the appellant, besides, his two daughters
who are also deaf and dumb. It is averred, that the appellant
has already retired from service on 31.12.2012 even before
filing of the charge sheet and it would be just and proper in
the interest of justice to allow the application and suspend the
operation of execution of the judgment whereby the
appellant's plea for grant of bail deserves to be considered
sympathetically.
3. Heard and considered.
4. From the impugned judgment, it transpires that the
appellant has been convicted under Section 420/471 RPC for
imprisonment of three years and one year respectively along
with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-. Offences under
Section 420/471 RPC are not grave and severe in nature and
are not punishable for imprisonment of life or death penalty.
The appellant is a resident of Village Rajal (Thathi), Tehsil
Nowshera, District Rajouri and is son of the soil having
moveable and immoveable property. He does not possess
golden wings to free from justice. The main appeal is
continuation of criminal trial and a fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence is that presumption of innocence
always lies in favour of accused and grant of bail is a general
rule and its refusal is an exception and deprivation of
personal liberty must be considered as punishment and the
principal rule to guide release of accused on bail should be to
secure the presence during continuation of the appeal.
5. Along with the criminal appeal, learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted a medical certificate issued by Dr.
Vikrant Sharma, Super Specialty Clinic, New Plots, Jammu
which reveals that the appellant/accused has undergone
below knee amputation of right lower limbs as a result of
crush injury on his right leg and he is physically disabled as a
result of amputation. For the last more than week's time the
appellant has been sentenced and is presently lying in District
Jail, Dhangri, Rajouri.
6. Issue notice to the respondents.
7. In the meantime, operation of the judgment of
conviction dated 21.12.2021 and order of sentence dated
22.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri is
stayed and the appellant is admitted on bail subject to
furnishing of surety bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the
satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court and personal
bond of the like amount before the Superintendent, District
Jail, Dhangri, Rajouri-respondent No.2 with a direction that
the appellant-accused shall appear before this Court on each
and every dates of hearing either personally or through his
counsel.
8. List on 15.03.2022.
9. Call for the scan record from the court below.
(Mohan Lal Manhas)
Judge
Jammu:
29.12.2021
Vijay
