Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1067 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-01

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has been filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence awarded vide judgment dated 13.2.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Criminal Original Case No. 37/2014, has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 327 I.P.C. in Criminal Original Case No. 37/2014 before the Trial Court. After conclusion of the trial petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 327 I.P.C. and following sentence was awarded to him by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.2.2014:- under Section 341 I.P.C. one month RI with fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof 10 days further imprisonment. under Section 323 I.P.C. one year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default thereof one month further imprisonment. under Section 327 I.P.C. five year RI with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof six months further imprisonment. 3. being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.2.2014 the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the Appellate Court, wherein an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence has also been filed. The Appellate Court has rejected the said application for suspension of sentence vide order dated 20.2.2014. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition while challenging the order dated 20.2.2014. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Appellate Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence, while observing that if the petitioner is released on bail he may abscond and will not appear before the Court. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis for making such observations because the petitioner has never failed to appear before the Trial Court on any date. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis for making such observations because the petitioner has never failed to appear before the Trial Court on any date. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court has also observed that the petitioner was earlier convicted for similar nature of offence while over looking the act that for the offence punishable under Section 327 I.P.C. the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the order dated 20.2.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Appellate Court be directed to suspend the sentence of the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the Appellate Court and submit that the Appellate Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and no interference is called for. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Though the Appellate Court has observed that if the petitioner is released on bail he may abscond and will not appear before the Court, but the Appellate Court has failed to give any reason for making such observations. When the petitioner has attended the Trial Court regularly, it cannot be presumed that if the petitioner is released on bail after suspension of his sentence he may abscond. It is also noticed that though earlier the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 427/34, 323/34 but was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 327/34 I.P.C. 8. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court dated 20.2.2014 is quashed and the Appellate Court is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence afresh and pass appropriate order on the same expeditiously.Petition disposed of. *******