LexSHYAM NARAIN PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 923 SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2014) JULY 22, 2014. [M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: A B s. 389 (1) - Prayer for stay of conviction - Appellant c convicted u/s 302 /PC etc. - Prayer declined by High Court - Held: It has been cautioned time and again that court should be very wary in staying the conviction and it shall be done only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice 0 -- The plea that appellant will be deprived of his source of livelihood if conviction is not stayed, cannot be appreciated - - High Court has rightly held that it is not a very rare and exceptional case for staying the conviction. The appellant, a Principal, was convicted u/s 147, E 148, 302/144 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by trial court. The prayer of the appellant for staying the judgment of conviction was declined by High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. 'Convict' means declared to be guilty of criminal offence by the verdict of court of law. That declaration is made after the court finds him guilty of the charges which have been proved against him. Thus, in effect, if one prays for stay of conviction, he is asking for G stay of operation of the effects of the declaration of being guilty. [para 7) [926-E-F] 923 H 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A 1.2. It has been consistently held by this Court that unless there are exceptional circumstances, the appellate court shall not stay the conviction, though the sentence may be suspended. Even for suspension of the sentence, the court has to record the reasons in writing B u/s 389(1) Cr.PC. If the convict is involved in crimes which are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, stay of conviction would have serious impact on the public perception of the integrity institution. Such orders definitely will shake the public confidence in c judiciary. Therefore, it has been cautioned time and again that the court should be very wary in staying the conviction and it shall be done only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice. [para 8- D 9) [926-G; 927-A, D-E] Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1156 = 2007 (1) SCC 673, Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (1) SCR 1143 = 2007 (2) SCC 574; State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti E Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar 2012 (9) SCR 601 = 2012 (12) SCC 384; State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and another 2003 (12) SCC 432, and Union of India v. Afar Singh and another 2003 (12) sec 434 - relied on. F 1.3. The plea that the appellant will be deprived of his source of livelihood if the conviction is not stayed cannot be appreciated. The High Court has discussed in detail the background of the appellant, the nature of the crime, G manner in which it was committed, etc. and has rightly held that it is not a very rare and exceptional case for staying the conviction. [para 13) [929-8-C] Case Law Reference : H 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1156 relied on para 10 SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. 925 2007 (1) SCR 1143 2012 (9) SCR 601 2003 (12) sec 432 2003 (12) sec 434 relied on relied on relied on relied on para 10 para 11 para 12 para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2014. A B From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 17550 of 2013 in Criminal c Appeal No. 3239 of 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Ashok Panigrahi, R.N. Tripathi, Santosh Kumar, Ashmi Mohan, Tuleka Mukherjee (Anuradha & Associates) for the D Appellants. R. K. Das, Pramod Swarup, Sibo Sankar Misra, Pareena Swarup, Ameet Singh, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J.: 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Scope of stay of conviction under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC'), is the subject matter of this appeal. E F 4. Appellant was tried along with six others by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. He G was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.