Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1175 (RAJ)

Jitendra Bhai v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.3.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389(1) foil suspending the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, the I Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5.3.2014, convicted the petitioner and f sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.3.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court along with an application under Section P 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of the sentence. However, the learned Appellate i Court has rejected the said application vide order dated 13.3.2014 on the ground that if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended and he is released of bail, there is possibility that he may not appear before the Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since March, 2013 and has served the sentence for more than one year, It is also contended that there is no reason for the Appellate Court to express the apprehension of absence of the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Appellate Court has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence and, therefore, the order dated 13.3.2014 may be set aside and the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 5.3.2014 may kindly be ordered to be suspended and the petitioner may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and argued that the Appellate Court, after taking into consideration die seriousness of the offence, has rightly refused to suspend the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 6. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and argued that the Appellate Court, after taking into consideration die seriousness of the offence, has rightly refused to suspend the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 6. In the impugned order dated 13.3.2014, the learned Appellate Court has not given any reason for expressing the apprehension that if the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is released on bail, he may not appear before the Appellate Court. 7. It is noticed that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the petitioner of three years and the petitioner has already served the sentence of about more than one year. 8. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the Appellate Court is not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence. It is always open for the Appellate Court to impose a ration upon a convict for ensuring his presence during the pendency of appeal while suspending his sentence. 9. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.3.2014 is set aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence afresh and pass an order in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations and directions, this criminal misc. petition fed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******