Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shishu Pal vs . State Of Hp on 22 January, 2025
Shishu Pal Vs. State of HP
Cr. Revision No.64 of 2025
22.01.2025 Present: Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma &
Mr. Harinder Rawat, Addl. Advocates General
with Mr. Manish Thakur Deputy Advocate
General, for the respondent/State.
Notice. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned
Addl. Advocate General appears and waives service of
notice on behalf of the respondent.
Admit.
Records be called for.
List for hearing in due course.
Cr. MP No.366 of 2025
The applicant-petitioner has preferred the
present petition against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26.04.2024, passed by the learned
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, Session
Division Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, HP in case
Registration No.724 of 2013, titled State of HP Versus
Shishu Pal and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge,
Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District
Shimla, HP, in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2024, titled Shishu
Pal Vs. State of HP, decided on 04.01.2025.
The revision filed raises arguable points. The
applicant-petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 279
of IPC, one month SI for offence under Section 337 and
one year SI for offence under Section 304A of IPC and to
pay a fine Rs.5,000/-.
The sentence imposed, in the case at hand, is
fixed term sentence. In this respect it would be appropriate
to refer to judgment dated 05.07.2024 passed in
SLP(Criminal) Diary No.27298/2024, titled Bhupatji
Sartajji Jabraji Thakor Vs. The State of Gujarat. The
relevant extract is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
“There is a fine distinction between a
sentence imposed by the trial court for a
fixed term and sentence life
imprisonment. If a sentence is for a fixed
term, ordinarily, the appellate court may
exercise its discretion to suspend the
operation of the same liberally unless
there are any exceptional circumstances
emerging from the record to decline.
However, when it is a case of life
imprisonment, the only legal test which
the Court should apply is to ascertain
whether there is anything palpable or
apparent on the face of the record on the
basis of which the court can come to the
conclusion that the conviction is not
sustainable in law and that the convict has
very fair chances of succeeding in his
appeal. For applying such test, it is also
not permissible for the court to undertake
the exercise of re-appreciating the
evidence. The emphasis is on the word
“palpable” and the expression “apparent
on the face of the record”.
Perused the record, there are no exceptional
circumstances emerging thereof necessitating declining of
relief as is being sought. Since the matter is admitted for
hearing, listing of the same is going to take some time,
therefore, the sentence in the case at hand, is ordered to
be suspended, subject to the applicant depositing the
entire fine amount, if not already deposited, before the trial
Court within four weeks from today and also subject to his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, undertaking therein that petitioner will
attend this Court as and when required and in case of
dismissal of the revision, he will immediately surrender
before the learned Court to receive the sentence.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial
Court with the direction that the report of compliance of
this order be submitted to this Court within a period of six
weeks. The application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Vacation Judge
22nd January, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
[ad_1]
Source link