JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Biri Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Laxmikant Shandilya, appearing for the accused-applicant, submits that even though the accused-applicant along with his son was charged for offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, the trial court from the evidence before it found that no offence under Section 304B IPC could be made out. Counsel submits that however the trial court has proceeded to convict the accused-applicant for offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 13.07.2011, finding merits in the case of the accused-applicant and the appeal to be an arguable one, has suspended the sentence visited upon the accused-applicant by the trial court i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, under its judgment dated 10.02.2011. Sr. counsel submits that the accused-applicant was working as LDC in the Education Department and has since retired on 22.06.2010. It is submitted that owing to the conviction, the accused-applicant is being denied his pension. Sr. counsel submits that the power of this court as an appellate court, hearing the criminal appeals from the judgment of the conviction, to stay conviction is no more res integra. He submits that the fundamental enquiry to be made by the appellate court while hearing an application for staying an order of conviction by the trial court is as to whether the accused-applicant was found guilty of any corruption or criminal misconduct in service or guilty for an offence which includes moral turpitude. Sr. counsel submits that neither of the aforesaid situation obtains in the present case. It is submitted that the accused-applicant is in the evening of his life and is being denied the only source of subsistence by stopping of his pension owing to the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2011 passed by the trial court.

(2.) MR . V.R. Bajwa, appearing for the complainant, has stoutly opposed the application for staying the conviction of the accused-applicant stating that the deceased Ritu wife of Navin Gaur and daughter-in-law of the accused-applicant, died within six months of her marriage. He submits that there was adequate evidence and more before the trial court to hold the accused-applicant guilty of offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. He submits that the complainant has in fact filed a cross appeal against the judgment dated 10.02.2011, passed by the trial court and seeks the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 304B IPC.

(3.) IN my opinion, the accused-applicant, on the face of the judgment of the trial court and conviction under Section 306 and 498A IPC, cannot be said to be involved in any matter relating to corruption or criminal misconduct in service or moral turpitude. Taking into consideration the accused-applicant's age and the necessity of the subsistence in the evening of his life, I would be inclined to stay the conviction of the accused-applicant to eschew the unintended consequence of the conviction and undeserved hardship unrelated to the subject matter of this criminal appeal.