RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE provision of law relating to suspension of sentence pending appeal by a convicted person is contained in S. 389 of the Code of criminal Procedure. S. 389 (1) empowers the appellate Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to direct that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and that the appellant if in confinement be released on bail, or on his own bond. S. 389 (4) states that when the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is to be released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. In view of the reference to imprisonment for life in S. 389 (4), it is clear that there is no legal bar against suspending of sentence pending disposal of an appeal by a person convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life

(2.) BUT, at the same time, it is clear that a person so convicted cannot, as of right, claim for suspension of sentence in view of the language used in sub-section (1 ). Under that provision it is for the appellate court to decide whether execution of the sentence should be suspended and in cases where the Court is inclined to suspend it has to give its reasons. This is so irrespective of the fact whether the conviction is for murder or for a lesser offence. However, in practice the discretion is rarely exercised in favour of the accused in cases where the conviction is for murder and the sentence is imprisonment for life.

(3.) THE question again came for consideration of the supreme Court in Babu Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR. 1978 SC. 527. That was also a case of bail before the Supreme Court. THE question was whether during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court the appellants were entitled to bail. In that particular case the appellants were acquitted by the Sessions judge. THE State appealed against the acquittal and the High Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court the State did not press for their custody. THEre was nothing to indicate that during the long period of five years when appellants had been out of prison pending appeal before High Court there had been any conduct on their part suggestive of disturbing the peace of the locality threatening any one in the Village or otherwise thwarting the life of the community or the course of justice. THE Supreme Court held that under such circumstances the appellants were entitled to bail with certain safeguards. Special reference has been made in the case to the decision in Kashmira Singh v. THE state of Punjab, A1r. 1977 SC. 2147, and the reasoning thereunder has been adopted as a ground for allowing the prayer for suspension of sentence.