This is the second application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully scanned the impugned judgment dated 23rd June, 2009 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur City, Jaipur, it is noticed that the accused petitioner escaped from the custody and thereafter was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 224 of IPC. After completion of trial, the accused petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 224 of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already served out the sentence for more than one and half years and only approximately one and half months is left to be served out. Hence, his sentence deserves to be suspended in view of the provisions under Section 436-A of CR.P.C
4. E-converso, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the application on the ground that the accused petitioner has been involved in as many as 49 criminal cases and in many of the cases he has been convicted. When only one and half months sentence is left to be served out by the petitioner, the sentence, at this juncture does not deserve to be suspended.
5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar, it is noticed that it is the accused petitioner who has been convicted for the offence under Section 224 of I.P.C where the accused escaped from the judicial custody. Albeit, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner argued that it is not proved as to how did the accused escape from the custody, but it is found to have been categorically observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the judgment and the Hon'ble Apex Court also in umpteen cases has held that for the offence under Section 224 of IPC the prosecution is required to prove only two facts; one is that he was in custody and secondly, he escaped from the custody. Keeping in view these facts emerging on record, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court to the accused petitioner and the second application for suspension of sentence for the reasons afore-stated stands dismissed.
6. Since the accused petitioner is going to complete the sentence as awarded to him, the revision petition may be listed for hearing on priority basis before the regular Bench.
Comments