JASMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . Misc. No. 41116 of 2006 Application allowed. Notice dated 16.3.2006, Annexure A-1, is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. 22607 of 2006 Appellant Jasminder Kaur, who has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 306 IPC, has filed this application for staying her conviction during the pendency of appeal.

(2.) THE appellant is 50 years old widow. At the time of the alleged offence, she was working as Class IV employee (Sewadar) in Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Nanowal. As per the prosecution version, allegation against the appellant was that she did not allow the deceased and her husband to go back to their native village and asked them to give her Rs. 40,000/- which she had spent on their marriage. The appellant was accused along with Jaswinder Singh, husband of the deceased, who has been acquitted by the trial Court. As per the appellant, in this case, there is no allegation of demand of dowry and the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of co- accused Jaswinder Singh which is not permissible as per law.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and her conviction is doubtful. On merit, she has a very strong case of acquittal. Counsel submits that this is 2000 appeal, hearing of which is likely to take some time, and in case, conviction of the appellant is not stayed, she will be removed from service. Counsel further submits that the appellant is an old widow and in case her services are terminated, a great prejudice will be caused to her and she will not be able to survive. Counsel submits that in view of all these facts, the appellate Court has the ample power under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the sentence of conviction during the pendency of the appeal in certain circumstances where the order of conviction is to result into some disqualification of the accused. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others, 1995(2) SCC 513.