SHINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this application is to stay suspension of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant-petitioner by Summary General Court Martial vide order dated 10th June, 1998 whereby he was held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC and has been awarded imprisonment for life, apart from dismissal from service.

(2.) In support of the prayer in this application, Learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that:- (i) the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of more than eight years and eight months; (ii) the writ petition challenging the proceedings of Summary General Court Martial is not likely to be taken up for hearing as per its turn in near future; (iii) it might be that by that time the applicant-petitioner undergoes the entire sentence period which would cause extreme prejudice to him, apart from rendering the writ petition as infructuous; (iv) the petitioner's case for suspension of sentence and consequential release on bail is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana; (v) there is every likelihood of the acceptance of the petitioner's writ petition as he has been held guilty by returning perverse finding on the basis of inadmissible circumstantial evidence by the Court Martial.

(3.) Shri Kamal Sehgal, learned Standing Counsel for UOI contends that the petitioner was tried by the General Court Martial under the Army Act, 1950 and Rules framed thereunder which is a Special Statute for conducting trials of army personnel and there being no provision corresponding to Section 389 Cr.P.C. in the Army Act and/or Rules framed thereunder, the sentence awarded by the General Court Martial cannot be suspended. According to the learned counsel, in terms of Section 5 of the Cr.P.C., the said Code is inapplicable in the General Court Martial proceedings. He has further referred to Section 182 of the Army Act which prescribes Chief of the Army Staff as the sole competent authority to suspend the sentence awarded by the General Court Martial and in the present case since the said authority has already declined to suspend the sentence, it is argued that no such relief can be granted by this Court. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Ajmer Singh etc. etc. v. Union of India and others and Ajit Kumar v. Union of India and others? and on a Single Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dhirender Kumar Singh v. State of A.P.