Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 128 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-15

V.K.MATHUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The accused-appellant Devi Singh has filed this stay application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for staying conviction imposed on him by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2010. 2. The appellant was tried alongwith ten others by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bharatpur Headquarter, Bayana in Sessions Case No.111/2008 for the charges under Section 148, 353, 332, 307, 307/149 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act. However the accused-appellant Devi Singh was convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and further convicted under Section 332 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 353 IPC and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250/-. The appellant was granted bail by this Court on 13.12.2010. Thereafter the appellant has filed an application for staying judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2010 passed by the trial court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accused-appellant is innocent. The appellant wants to contest the election of Sarpanch at Gram Panchayat Bangaspura, District Bharatpur. It has been further averred if the conviction is not stayed it will deprive him from contesting the election of Sarpanch. In these circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to stay the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction. 4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 Criminal Law Reporter (Supreme Court) 166. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the stay application. It was contended that looking to the conviction of the appellant under Section 332, 353 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, if his conviction is stayed for contesting the election of Sarpanch it will have an adverse effect on the society and prayed that stay of conviction should not be granted to the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in the case of Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2014) 8 (Supreme Court Cases) 909. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in the case of Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2014) 8 (Supreme Court Cases) 909. 6. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the record and judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. In Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 909 Hon'ble Apex Court after referring to the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab (Supra) has held as follows:- “4. A “convict” means declared to be guilty of criminal offence by the verdict of court of law. That declaration is made after the court finds him guilty of the charges which have been proved against him. Thus, in effect, if one prays for stay of conviction, he is asking for stay of operation of the effects of the declaration of being guilty. “5. It has been consistently held by this Court that unless there are exceptional circumstances, the appellate court shall not stay the conviction, though the sentence may be suspended. There is no hard-and-fast rule or guidelines as to what are those exceptional circumstances.... “6. .......This is also an indication as to the seriousness of such offences and circumspection which the court should have while passing the order on stay of conviction. Similar is the case with offences involving moral turpitude. If the convict is involved in crimes which are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, if the conviction also is stayed, it would have serious impact on the public perception on the integrity of the institution. Such orders definitely will shake the public confidence in judiciary. That is why, it has been cautioned time and again that the court should be very wary in staying the conviction especially in the types of cases referred to above and it shall be done only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice. 8. In the light of principles laid down in Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. (Supra), the relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted on the ground that it will deprive the appellant from contesting the election of Sarpanch. 8. In the light of principles laid down in Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. (Supra), the relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted on the ground that it will deprive the appellant from contesting the election of Sarpanch. The appellant has been convicted for assaulting and causing hurt to a public servant and firing from a pistol and until he is otherwise declared innocent in appeal, the stain stands. Looking to the nature of the crime, if the conviction is stayed it would have a serious impact on the society and will shake the public confidence in judiciary and as such it is not a very rare and exceptional case for staying the conviction. 9. Consequently, the stay application of the appellant is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.