Sec.389 of Cr.P.C. – Stay of Sentence convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 IPC read with Section – Grounds for granting – Apex court held that He has been working as a Principal and if the conviction is not stayed, he will lose his job, will be denied of his livelihood and he would not be in a position to participate in subsequent selection procedures conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad.are not the grounds for granting stay as he was convicted under sec.302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1515 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5654 of 2014 CRLMP No. 8191 of 2014] Shyam Narain Pandey … Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. … Respondent (s) = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41782

Sec.389 of Cr.P.C. – Stay of Sentence convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 IPC  read  with  Section – Grounds for granting – Apex court held that He has been working as a Principal and if the  conviction  is  not stayed, he will lose his job, will be denied of his livelihood and he  would not be in a position  to  participate  in  subsequent  selection  procedures conducted  by  the  U.P.  Secondary  Education  Services  Selection   Board, Allahabad are not the grounds for granting stay as he was convicted under sec.302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment = 

It

is the contention of the learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  he  is

innocent.

He has been working as a Principal and if the  conviction  is  not

stayed, he will lose his job, will be denied of his livelihood and he  would

not be in a position  to  participate  in  subsequent  selection  procedures

conducted  by  the  U.P.  Secondary  Education  Services  Selection   Board,

Allahabad.

We are afraid none of these contentions can be appreciated.  The  appellant

has been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 IPC  read  with  Section

120B IPC and is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

‘Convict’ means declared to be guilty of criminal offence by the verdict  of

court of law. That declaration is made after the court finds him  guilty  of

the charges which have been proved against him.  Thus,  in  effect,  if  one

prays for stay of conviction, he is asking for  stay  of  operation  of  the

effects of the declaration of being guilty. =

It  has  been  consistently  held  by  this  Court  that  unless  there  are

exceptional  circumstances,  the  appellate  court  shall   not   stay   the

conviction, though the sentence may be suspended.

There is no hard and  fast

rule or guidelines as to what are those exceptional circumstances.

However,

there are certain indications  in  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973

itself as to which are those situations and a few indications are  available

in the judgments of this Court as to what are those circumstances.

It may be noticed that even for the suspension of the  sentence,  the  court

has to record the reasons in writing under Section 389(1) Cr.PC.

Couple  of

provisos  were  added  under  Section   389(1)   Cr.PC   pursuant   to   the

recommendations made by the Law Commission  of  India  and  observations  of

this Court in various judgments, as per Act 25 of  2005.

It  was  regarding

the release on bail of a convict where the sentence  is  of  death  or  life

imprisonment or of a period not less than ten years.

If the appellate  court

is inclined to consider release of a convict of such  offences,  the  public

prosecutor has to be given an  opportunity  for  showing  cause  in  writing

against such release.

This is also an indication as to  the  seriousness  of

such offences and circumspection which the court should have  while  passing

the order  on  stay  of  conviction.  Similar  is  the  case  with  offences

involving moral turpitude. If the convict is involved in  crimes  which  are

so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, if the conviction  also

is stayed, it would have serious impact on  the  public  perception  on  the

integrity  institution.  Such  orders  definitely  will  shake  the   public

confidence in judiciary.

That is why, it has been cautioned time  and  again

that the court should be very wary in staying the conviction  especially  in

the types of cases referred to above and it shall be done only in very  rare

and exceptional  cases  of  irreparable  injury  coupled  with  irreversible

consequences resulting in injustice.=

In the light of  the  principles  stated  above,  the  contention  that  the

appellant will be deprived of his source of livelihood if the conviction  is

not stayed cannot be appreciated.

For the  appellant,  it  is  a  matter  of

deprivation of livelihood but he is convicted for  deprivation  of  life  of

another person.

Until he is  otherwise  declared  innocent  in  appeal,  the

stain stands.  The High Court has discussed in detail the background of  the

appellant, the nature of the crime, manner in which it was  committed,  etc.

and has rightly held that it is not a very rare  and  exceptional  case  for

staying the conviction.

We do not, thus, find any merit in the appeal and the  same  is  accordingly

dismissed. However, we make it clear that the observations in this  judgment

are only for the purpose of this order and they shall have no bearing  while

hearing the appeal.