Himachal Pradesh High Court
Khurshid Begum & Another vs State Of H.P. on 6 November, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Khurshid Begum & Another versus State of H.P. Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 51 of 2025 06.11.2025 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent.
Cr.MP No.4592 of 2025 Although, the present application has been filed on behalf of applicants Khurshid Begum and Mohammad Azad, however, in view of the persuasive submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the same is ordered to be treated to be filed on behalf of applicant Khurshid Begum only.
2. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2019, titled as 'State of Himachal Pradesh versus Taliv Hussain & Others'.
3. Applicant has preferred the accompanying Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 342 of the IPC Act, and sentenced them, as under:-
Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo Section 363 Rigorous `10,000/- Rigorous IPC imprisonment for Imprisonment for three years three months.
Section Rigorous `10,000/- Rigorous 366A IPC imprisonment for five Imprisonment for years five months Section 342 Rigorous `500/- Rigorous IPC imprisonment for six Imprisonment for months fifteen days
4. Feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment, the accompanying appeal has been preferred, on the ground that from the evidence, so led by the prosecution, the offences, for which, the applicant has been convicted, have not been proved and the learned trial Court has misread and mis-appreciated the evidence.
5. Apart from this, the findings have also been challenged on the ground that there is no authentic evidence regarding the age of the victim to say 17 years and 10 months, as the record pertaining to the birth of the victim was not found in the office of Chief Medical Officer Chamba.
6. When put to notice, the respondent has filed reply, asserting the fact that the conviction of the applicant is based on the cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, duly proved by the independent witnesses and the official witnesses, whose testimonies remain consistent and unshaken, during the cross-examination. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application, as no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
7. The appeal, so preferred by the applicants, has been admitted for hearing, by this Court, and the disposal of the same will take sufficient long time.
8. The sentence, which has been imposed, by the learned trial Court, in this case, falls within the definition of fixed term and according to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat', reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421 and in 'Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat', reported in '2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320', the sentence, which falls within the definition of 'sentence of fixed term', is liable to be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai's case (supra) is reproduced, as under:-
"3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted."
9. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor's case (supra), is reproduced, as under:-
"7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of reappreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word "palpable" and the expression "apparent on the face of the record".
10. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, which falls within the definition of 'fixed term sentence', is liable to be suspended.
11. Consequently, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended and the applicants, who are presently lodged in District Jail, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., are ordered to be released on bail, in this case, during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present appeal, by this Court;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
12. Application is, thus, disposed of. Cr.MP No.4855 of 2025
13. By way of the present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to suspend the order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2019, titled as 'State of Himachal Pradesh versus Taliv Hussain & Others'.
14. Applicant has preferred the accompanying Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 342 of the IPC Act, and sentenced them, as under:-
Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo Section 363 Rigorous `10,000/- Rigorous IPC imprisonment for Imprisonment for three years three months.
Section Rigorous `10,000/- Rigorous 366A IPC imprisonment for five Imprisonment for years five months Section 342 Rigorous `500/- Rigorous IPC imprisonment for six Imprisonment for months fifteen days
15. Feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment, the accompanying appeal has been preferred, on the ground that from the evidence, so led by the prosecution, the offences, for which, the applicant has been convicted, have not been proved and the learned trial Court has misread and mis-appreciated the evidence.
16. Apart from this, the findings have also been challenged on the ground that there is no authentic evidence regarding the age of the victim to say 17 years and 10 months, as the record pertaining to the birth of the victim was not found in the office of Chief Medical Officer Chamba.
17. When put to notice, it has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that reply filed by the respondent in Cr.MP No. 4592 of 2025, be read as reply filed to this application also. In the reply, it has been asserted that the conviction of the applicant is based on the cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, duly proved by the independent witnesses and the official witnesses, whose testimonies remain consistent and unshaken, during the cross-examination. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application, as no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
18. The appeal, so preferred by the applicants, has been admitted for hearing, by this Court, and the disposal of the same will take sufficient long time.
19. The sentence, which has been imposed, by the learned trial Court, in this case, falls within the definition of fixed term and according to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat', reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421 and in 'Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat', reported in '2024 SCC OnLine SC 3320', the sentence, which falls within the definition of 'sentence of fixed term', is liable to be suspended. Relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai's case (supra) is reproduced, as under:-
"3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted."
20. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment in Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor's case (supra), is reproduced, as under:-
"7. There is a fine distinction between a sentence imposed by the trial court for a fixed term and sentence life imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed term, ordinarily, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the operation of the same liberally unless there are any exceptional circumstances emerging from the record to decline. However, when it is a case of life imprisonment, the only legal test which the Court should apply is to ascertain whether there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of the record on the basis of which the court can come to the conclusion that the conviction is not sustainable in law and that the convict has very fair chances of succeeding in his appeal. For applying such test, it is also not permissible for the court to undertake the exercise of reappreciating the evidence. The emphasis is on the word "palpable" and the expression "apparent on the face of the record".
21. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, which falls within the definition of 'fixed term sentence', is liable to be suspended.
22. Consequently, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the order of sentence dated 27.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is ordered to be suspended and the applicants, who are presently lodged in District Jail, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., are ordered to be released on bail, in this case, during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence, in case of ultimate dismissal of the present appeal, by this Court;
(ii) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
23. Application is, thus, disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
November 06, 2025 (ps)
Digitally signed
by PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.07
10:06:14 +0530