Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil @ Raja vs State Of Haryana on 8 May, 2015
CRM-7207 of 2015 in
CRA-D-1177-DB of 2011 -1-
Sunil @ Raju v. State of Haryana
Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Kuldip Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of applicant- appellant Sunil @ Raja, during the pendency of the appeal.
The case is on the regular board of this Bench and was taken up for hearing. However, during the course of hearing, it transpired that certain disclosure statements made by Naresh @ Poonam (CRA No.D-150-DB of 2012) as also Vikas and Rahaul are in Marathi language, which would require translation.
In the paper book, it is mentioned that Ex.P20, Ex.P37, Ex.P70, Ex.P71 and Ex.P72 could not be translated and these are in Marathi Language.
The case is based on circumstantial evidence, which would require consideration. Besides, translation of the documents would be necessary for effective decision of the case.
Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Sh. Daya Nand, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant-appellant Sunil @ Raja. The same is taken on record.
In terms of the affidavit of Sh. Daya Nand, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak that has been filed, the applicant-appellant has undergone actual imprisonment of seven SHARMA YOGESH 2015.05.08 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-7207 of 2015 in CRA-D-1177-DB of 2011 -2- years, six months and twenty five days as on 31.03.2015. This includes imprisonment of three years, four months and seventeen days after conviction. The sentence of co-convict Naresh @ Poonam has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2015 passed in CRM No.3396 of 2015 in CRA No.D-150-DB of 2012. Her case was covered by the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana 1999 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600 (DB) (P&H).
The case of the applicant-appellant is also covered by the guidelines laid down in the said case inasmuch he has undergone more than 5 years of imprisonment out of which three years are after conviction.
According to the learned State Counsel, the applicant- appellant is convicted in two other cases i.e. for the offences under Sections 307, 398 and 401 IPC in one case and Section 224 IPC in the other. However, in one case, he has already undergone his sentence that is in the first case and the other case relates to Police Station GRP Jhansi (Madhaya Pradesh) for the offence under Section 224 IPC in which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years, besides, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
The hearing of the appeal would take more time. Keeping in view the fact that the co-convict for the applicant- appellant has been granted bail as her case was covered by the guidelines laid down in Dharam Pal's case (supra), therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to SHARMA YOGESH 2015.05.08 18:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-7207 of 2015 in CRA-D-1177-DB of 2011 -3- suspend the sentence of imprisonment of Sunil @ Raja (applicant-appellant) as well, during pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of Sunil @ Raja (applicant-appellant) shall, during pendency of the appeal, remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak.
( S.S. SARON )
JUDGE
08.05.2015 ( RAMENDRA JAIN )
yogesh JUDGE
SHARMA YOGESH
2015.05.08 18:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document