Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 80 (RAJ)

Hanuman Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-09

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on for consideration of two applications (CRLMA Nos.20/2015 and 25/2015). The application (CRLMA No.20/2015) is filed by the appellants for taking compromise, entered into between the appellants and the complainant - Mangilal, on record and to decide the appeal in the light of compromise. The application (CRLMA No.25/2015) is preferred by the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad with a prayer that conviction of him recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.16/1997 vide judgment dated 18.09.1999 be stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the parties prayed some time to argue the application (CRLMA No.20/2015) to satisfy this Court that this criminal appeal can be decided on the basis of compromise and the appellants can be acquitted from the charges for which they have been convicted because the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh Ors. v. State of Punjab Anr., 2014 SC CANDID 20 while defining the power lies in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as under:- "Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court." 3. Time prayed for is granted. The compromise produced by the parties be taken on record. 4. While arguing the application (Crlma No.25/2015) learned counsel for the appellantapplicant - Hanuman Prasad has argued that the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad is willing to contest the Panchayat Raj Election scheduled to be held on 23.01.2015 and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad recorded by the trial court may kindly be stayed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant Hanuman Prasad has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1003 and submitted that the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad has a valuable right to contest the election and once when the dispute between the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad and the complainant have already been amicably settled through compromise, the conviction recorded by the trial court may kindly be stayed. 6. reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1003 and submitted that the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad has a valuable right to contest the election and once when the dispute between the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad and the complainant have already been amicably settled through compromise, the conviction recorded by the trial court may kindly be stayed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has no objection if the conviction of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad recorded by trial court be stayed. However, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad and submitted that the application for suspending the conviction is made by the appellant applicant - Hanuman Prasad after 15 years and there is no reason to stay the conviction. It is also contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad has failed to draw attention of this Court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 8. It is not in dispute that this Court has the jurisdiction to stay the conviction of a convict appellant during the pendency of any criminal appeal before it, however, for that the applicant has to draw attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad has argued that if the conviction of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad is not stayed he shall not be eligible for contesting the Panchayat Raj Election scheduled to be held on 23.01.2015. I am not impressed by the above argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad for the reason that the conviction of the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad was recorded way back in the year 1999 and, thereafter, many Panchayat Raj Elections took place and he has never moved any application for suspending of his conviction for the purpose of taking part or contesting the Panchayat Raj Elections. It is also noticed that at present the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad is not a member of any Panchayat Raj Institution. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that he was also not a member of any Panchayt Raj Institution prior to the year 1999 and has never contested any such election during his lifetime. It is also noticed that at present the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad is not a member of any Panchayat Raj Institution. Learned counsel has fairly conceded that he was also not a member of any Panchayt Raj Institution prior to the year 1999 and has never contested any such election during his lifetime. Looking to above circumstances, it cannot be held that if the conviction of the appellant applicant - Hanuman Prasad is not stayed the same will result in drastic consequences. 10. Hence, I do not find any merit in the application preferred by the appellant-applicant - Hanuman Prasad praying for suspending the conviction recorded by the trial court vide judgment dated 18.09.1999, therefore, the application (CRLMA No.25/2015) is dismissed 11. Let this matter be listed after four weeks for consideration of application (CRLMA No.20/2015).Application dismissed. *******