Delay in disposal of appeal

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D, 148 & 149-Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence

Delay in disposal of appeal

Petitioner had not been assigned any injury on the body of the deceased and he had been attributed the role of inflicting churri blow on the abdomen of injured

As per report submitted by the jail authorities, the petitioner had already undergone a period of about 08 years 02 months and 06 days and the remaining portion of his sentence was 01 year 09 months and 24 days, meaning thereby that the petitioner had undergone the major portion of his sentence

Main criminal appeal of the petitioner had already been admitted for regular hearing but there was no possibility of early fixation and decision of the main appeal filed by the petitioner before the Court as the same pertained to the year 2022

Nothing was on record to show that the petitioner contributed towards the delay in decision of his main appeal

If the sentence awarded to the petitioner was not suspended then there was likelihood that he might serve out his entire sentence before the decision of main case on merits and it would amount to awarding the petitioner punishment in advance

Petition was allowed and sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was released on bail, in circumstances.

Maxim: 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' could be invoked only if delay in deciding appeal was on the part of Appellate Forum (Court)

Tax payer could not be beneficiary of its own inactions while taking unnecessary adjournments and not pursuing for early decision of appeal through applications for early hearing

Jurisdiction was always conferred upon Courts and quasi-judicial forums by Legislature

Restriction on time for granting interim relief could not be exceeded under normal circumstances

Constitutional Courts created an exception by invoking principle for administration of justice and good conscience

Commissioner (Appeals) alone could determine or attribute delay, therefore, application for extension of interim relief granted by Appellate Tribunal beyond statutory period was to be moved before it and rest procedure was to be followed

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

As per the allegations contained in the FIR, no injury on the person of deceased had been attributed to the present accused and the only allegation against him was of giving butt blows of Kalashnikov on the head of injured prosecution witness

In view of the postmortem report of the deceased, it was yet to be seen by the Appellate (High) Court, whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C.

Appeal filed by the accused before the High Court against his conviction/sentence was pending and the final adjudication of his appeal was still not in sight

Sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused by Trial Court was suspended in circumstances.

Accused allegedly inflicted hatchet injuries on the deceased in a brutal way for the reason that he (i.e. deceased) did not salute him

Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under Ss.302(b) and 452, P.P.C.

Contention of accused was that a period of more than two years had passed but his appeal had not been decided within the statutory period as envisaged by S. 426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.

Complainant contended that conduct of the accused and the brutal and cruel manner in which he killed the deceased was of such nature which brought him under the category of a hardened, desperate and dangerous offender, and thus disentitled him from any concession due to the prohibition imposed by virtue of proviso to S.426(1-A), Cr.P.C.

Validity

Case order sheets showed that on each date of hearing counsel for accused was in attendance and not a single adjournment had been sought by him, nor disposal of appeal had been delayed on account of any act or omission on part of the accused

Alleged act of accused was not of such a nature which could bring him under the prohibitory clause of S. 426(1-A), Cr.P.C.

No material had been placed on record to show that accused was a habitual or previously convicted offender

Sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was suspended in circumstances and he was released on bail.

Contentions of the accused were that his appeal had not reached its logical end despite a lapse of more than two years; that the accused had not made any contribution towards such delay in disposal of his appeal, and that the accused was a previous non-convict and had no history of involvement in cases similar to the present case, therefore, he could not be deemed to be a desperate or hardened criminal

Validity

Appeal filed by the accused had not been decided despite a lapse of more than two years and the accused was not responsible for such delay

Accused was neither a desperate nor a hardened criminal

No material was available to withhold the concession of bail available to the accused on statutory grounds under S.426, Cr.P.C.

Petition of accused for suspension of sentence was accepted and he was released on bail.

Certificate from Jail Superintendent showed that accused was not a previous convict and his conduct in prison remained satisfactory

No adjournments had been taken by counsel for accused during pendency of appeal

Appeal had been adjourned on a number of occasions for want of time

During pendency of appeal accused had moved urgent applications for hearing of his application under S. 426, Cr.P.0 but sane was not decided

Sentence of accused was suspended and he was released on bail in circumstances.