Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 874 (ALL)

Siya Janki v. State of U. P.

2015-04-17

RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, RAVINDRA SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Raghvendra Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. This application under section 389 Cr.P.C. has been moved in criminal appeal no. 4386 of 2013 on behalf of the appellant Smt. Siya Janki with a prayer that the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. and Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J. may be modified by adding the following words " suspend the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Room No. 9, Allahabad in S.T. No. 506 of 2009(State Versus Anil Kumar Pandey and another) during the pendency of this criminal appeal" Since Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J. has retired, this application has been nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.4.2014 to the bench presided over by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. 3. The appellant Smt. Siya Janki along with the co-accused Anil Kumar Pandey and Pankaj Kumar has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. 323/34 I.P.C. sections 504 and 427 I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under sections 302/34 I.P.C., to undergo six months simple imprisonment under section 323/34 I.P.C. and to undergo six months simple imprisonment under section 504 I.P.C., to undergo six months simple imprisonment under section 427 I.P.C. The accused Pankaj Kumar Pandey has been further convicted under section 27 of Arms Act to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad on 23.9.2013 in S.T. No. 506 of 2009 connected with S.T. No. 509 of 2009. 4. Against the judgement and order dated 23.9.2013 the appellants Smt. Siya Janki and Anil Kumar Pandey preferred criminal appeal no. 4326 of 2013, the appellant Pankaj Kumar preferred criminal appeal no. 5253 of 2013, both the appeals have been connected. All the three appellants moved their bail applications in their respective appeals, which have been heard and disposed of by a common order dated 16.12.2013 by which the appellants Smt. Siya Janki and Anil Kumar have been released on bail and realisation of fine awarded by the trial court was stayed during the pendency of the appeal but the prayer for bail of the accused Pankaj Kumar Pandey was refused. 5. 5. The present application has been moved on behalf of the appellant Smt. Siya Janki with a prayer to suspend the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 9 Allahabad in S.T. No. 506 of 2009 whereby the appellant Smt. Siya Janki has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under sections 302/34,323/34, 504,427 I.P.C. 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant Smt. Siya Janki is a Government employee and is posted as Angan Bari Karyakarti in village Lahbara tehsil Kaondhiyara district Allahabad, she has been terminated by the department on 29.10.2008 in pursuance of the judgement and order dated 23.9.2013. Now criminal appeal filed by Smt. Siya Janki has been admitted and she has been released on bail, hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future, therefore, the judgement and order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the trial court may be suspended so that she may be reinstated on the post of Aangan Bari Karyakarti. The order dated 16.12.2013 may be modified by adding the words-- suspend the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Room No. 9 Allahabad in S.T. No. 506 of 2009- State Versus Anil Kumar Pandey and another during the pendency of this criminal appeal. 7. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case appellant Smt. Siya Janki has been convicted and sentenced under sections 302/34,323/34, 504 and 427 I.P.C. in which maximum sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded under sections 302/34 I.P.C. No ground touching the merits of the case has been taken to suspend the judgement and order dated 23.9.2013 because for suspending the order of conviction or execution of the sentence, reasons are required to be recorded and only on the basis of releasing the appellant on bail and staying the realisation of fine, the order dated 23.9.2013 may not be suspended, in such circumstances, the order dated 16.12.2013 may not be modified. 8. 8. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and considering the record and provision of section 389 Cr.P.C., it reveals that the appellate court is empowered to suspend the order appealed or the execution of the sentence but for it reasons to be recorded but in the present case, the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in pursuance of the judgement and order dated 23.9.2013 the appellant Smt. Siya Janki has been terminated from her service, she was posted as Angan Bari Karyakarti, in case the order dated 23.9.2013 is suspended, she may be reinstated, the next ground is that she has been released on bail by this court and the realisation of fine has also been stayed. The application moved for this purpose is not having any other ground on the merits of the case, in such circumstance, the grounds taken by the appellant that she is a Government Employee and was serving as Angan Bari Karyakarti, she has been terminated from her service in pursuance of the order dated 23.9.2013, in case the order dated 23.9.2013 is suspended, she may be reinstated, may not be a good ground to suspend the order dated 23.9.2013, and on ground of releasing on bail alone,- the order of conviction and sentence may not be suspended because the parameter of releasing a person on bail and to suspend the order of convcition and sentence is not the same. therefore, the prayer for suspending the order dated 23.9.2013 in respect of the appellant Smt. Siya Janki passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad in S.T. No. 506 of 2009, is refused. Consequently, the prayer for modification of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by this court is also refused. 9. Accordingly this application is dismissed.