Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It has been submitted that this Court has passed an order while considering the prayer for suspension of sentence by taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.6, the injured witness (the victim) as also the P.W.10, the independent witness corroborated by other witnesses including the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.8.

15. It has further been contended that merely because the half of the sentence has been completed, the prayer for suspension of sentence cannot be allowed.

16. It has also been contended on behalf of the State by referring to the objection, wherein, the issue of societal impact has been referred and more particularly the murder of eye witness, who has been examined as P.W.10, has also been brought on record.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the Informant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, have submitted that it is not case of suspension of sentence merely on the ground of completion of half of the sentence. Analysis

18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the content has been averred in the instant interlocutory application as also the objection filed on behalf of the State as also the Informant.

42. So far as the completion of half of the sentence is concerned, this Court is conscious that half of the sentence can be one of the grounds for suspension of sentence but it cannot be the sole ground, rather, the completion of half of the sentence is to be tested on the basis of surrounding facts.

43. It requires to refer herein the settled position of law that the period of custody cannot be the sole ground for suspension of sentence, rather, the nature of crime as has been found to be proved against one or the other, the appellant herein, is to be taken into consideration and even if the convict has completed substantive sentence or half of the sentence, that cannot be a sole ground for suspension of sentence if the nature of offence having been proved in course of trial is serious.

48. The issue of the appellant having undergone more than half of the sentence is, no doubt, a relevant consideration. However, such factor is required to be weighed by maintaining a delicate balance between the mandate of the Rule of Law and the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court must, therefore, ensure that while the right to life and personal liberty is safeguarded, the sanctity of judicial system and societal confidence in the justice delivery system are not undermined.