RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELYING on the cases of Angana & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767], Takht Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [(2001) 10 SCC 463], and Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail (for Suspension of Sentence) Application No.9/2010, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.575/2008, decided on 25.01.2011], Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that in case the accused-appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence and in case the criminal appeal cannot be decided within the remaining period of the sentence, then the sentence of the accused-appellant should be suspended. According to him, the accused-appellants have already served four years out of the seven years of their sentence. Thus, they have undergone a substantial part of their sentence.

(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. R.R. Baisla, the learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, have contended that even the cases referred by the learned counsel for the appellants do not lay down a universal principle. Therefore, each case would have to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

(3.) ALLEGEDLY, the occurrence had taken place on 06.10.2005. The accused-appellants were arrested on 07.05.2007 and till present they are in custody. Therefore, they have completed four years of incarceration. Thus, they have completed a substantial part of their sentence. Hence, they have faced the consequences of their alleged criminal action.