Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1073 (ALL)

Munnu Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-08-22

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. In Ref.: Criminal Misc. Suspension of Conviction and Sentence Application No. 16 of 2025 Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the record. 2. The instant application at the instance of the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, Munnu Singh son of Sarnam Singh Thakur, under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the suspension of conviction and sentence of the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 450 of 2008 (State Vs. Munnu Singh & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 33A of 2006 under Section 304, 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and Session Trial No. 451 of 2008 (State Vs. Ramautar) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2006, under Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 15,000/- each under Section 304 (Part-I)/34 I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment, seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 307/34 I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment and one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 504 IPC, in default thereof to undergo two months additional imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 submits that the conviction and sentence vide order dated 13.07.2023 was assailed before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023 which Appeal has been admitted and is pending consideration. The Applicant/ Appellant No. 1 was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023, however, the conviction and sentence of the order was not suspended. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 further submits that the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 was working as a Clerk in the Office of the Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur and consequent to his implication in the FIR and subsequent conviction and sentence was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.07.2023 and Charge-Sheeted by the Department vide charge-sheet dated 28.03.2024 on the ground that though he has been bailed out but the conviction and sentence has not been kept in abeyance. Resultantly, the suspension order continues to be operative and has not been revoked. Resultantly, the suspension order continues to be operative and has not been revoked. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant is the sole bread earner of the family and is suffering immensely on account of his continued suspension. The Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has not misused the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang, reported in 1995(2) SCC 513 [1995 lawsuit (SC) 113] and on the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2007(2) SCC 574 to buttress the submission that under Section 389 Cr.P.C. conviction of sentence can both be suspended during pendency of the Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the records as also the case laws cited at the Bar. We are of the considered opinion that the power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., however, its exercise should be limited to very exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted person files an Appeal to challenge his conviction the Court should not suspend the operation of the conviction and the Court has a duty to look at all aspects including the ramifications of keeping such conviction in abeyance. The Apex Court very recently in "Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another" reported in 2023(6) SCC 123 while considering the scope of Section 389 Cr.P.C. in cases of life imprisonment held as under:- "30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 638 , this Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the courts while granting benefit under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C in cases involving serious offences like murder etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the observations made therein, which are as follows: "4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. Thus, it is useful to refer to the observations made therein, which are as follows: "4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. 5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail. 6. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the accused persons were on bail during trial there was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view." 31. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view." 31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others reported in (2002) 9 SCC 364 and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another reported in (2002) 9 SCC 366 , it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar (supra), it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder." 6. In the case at hand, we find that admittedly the Applicant/Appellant No.1, Munnu Singh is a Government Servant and is being proceeded with Departmentally and has also been Charge-Sheeted. The applicant was suspended vide order dated 28.07.2023. The suspension order has been continued and disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the applicant. The applicant has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023. Under the relevant Service Rules, a Government Servant against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to criminal charge, which is connected with his position as Government Servant or which is likely to embarrass him in discharge of his duties or which involves moral turpitude may be suspended. On the aforesaid charge, a Government Servant can be terminated holding independent inquiry by the disciplinary authority even during pendency of the criminal case on same charges. 7. In the case at hand, the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has been convicted for the charges under Sections 304, 307, 504 I.P.C., Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is not connected with his position as Clerk, Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur, nor it is an offence relating to moral turpitude. In case an order suspending the conviction and sentence is passed, it would not violate any statutory provision. 8. In case an order suspending the conviction and sentence is passed, it would not violate any statutory provision. 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the application moved by the Appellant No. 1, namely Munnu Singh son of Sarnam Singh Thakur deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence awarded against the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 dated 13.07.2023 is suspended and the conviction shall not be operative till the decision of the Appeal. 9. List before appropriate Court for final hearing in the month of November, 2025.