In a suspension of sentence application arising from a POCSO conviction, the Single Bench suspended the remaining portion of a ten-year sentence for an appellant who had already served six years, predicting the appeal would not mature shortly.
Suspension of the remaining sentence of the appellant, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8367 of 2024
Appellant :- Gajodhar Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
(Order on Appeal)
Admit.
List this appeal in due course.
(Order on Suspension of Sentence Application)
Applicant-Appellant, namely, Gajodhar Prajapati stands convicted through judgment dated 22.10.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.22, Kanpur Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.49 of 2019 (State v. Gajodhar Prajapati), arising out of Case Crime No.240 of 2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., registered at Police StationGovindnagar, District- Kanpur Nagar and has been sentenced for commission of the offence alongwith fine.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial court has overlooked the material discrepancies in the prosecution case while passing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.10.2021. Learned counsel submits that out of substantive sentence of ten years imposed upon the applicant, a period of more than six years has already been undergone by the applicant and in this regard, he has produced the custody certificate of the applicant issued by Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Etawah on 04.03.2024. Learned counsel submits that the appeal is likely to succeed on the basis of the grounds pleaded and prays for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
While opposing the above prayer, learned A.G.A. has argued that the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the convict and the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.2021 is based upon correct appreciation of material on record. However, it is not disputed by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has already undergone a period of more than six years
against the total sentence of ten years.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that during trial, accused remained in custody, who after judgment of conviction dated 22.10.2021 is serving the sentence. Applicant has already undergone a period of more than six years in custody, out of total awarded sentence of ten years. Since, the appeal is not likely to get mature for final hearing in near future, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicant, during the pendency of the appeal as his further detention would not serve any useful purpose. In case, the sentence imposed upon the applicant is not suspended, the appeal may be rendered infructuous.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal, the remaining sentence of the applicantappellant is suspended, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024 P Kesari
Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sentence suspension is warranted given the appellant has served more than 60% of the awarded term and the appeal is unlikely to mature soon.
Whether such suspension renders the further detention infructuous.
Gajodhar Prajapati
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
