Introduction:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Naveen @ Bhola v. State of Haryana and Praveen v. State of Haryana, passed a significant order while considering applications for suspension of sentence filed by two convicts during the pendency of their criminal appeals. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur directed that the appellants be released on suspension of sentence, subject to stringent conditions, including performing community service for one month at the Civil Hospital, Gurugram.
The appellants had been convicted for the murder of Guddu in connection with an incident that occurred on 21 February 2020. During the hearing of their appeals, they sought suspension of their sentence, contending that several arguable legal issues existed regarding the cause of death and their criminal liability. The High Court examined the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the period of custody already undergone before deciding whether the sentence deserved to be suspended pending disposal of the appeals.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants argued that although the deceased sustained injuries during the incident, he underwent surgery at Safdarjung Hospital and was discharged on 28 February 2020 in a stable condition. After discharge, he returned to his native village in Bihar and died more than a month later on 6 April 2020 due to septicemia, toxemia, and shock.
It was contended that the death was not an immediate consequence of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants. Reliance was placed on the testimony of PW-8, the deceased’s brother, who stated that after returning home, the deceased resumed agricultural work and also consumed liquor, which adversely affected his recovery and led to septicemia. On this basis, the appellants submitted that a substantial question arose as to whether they could be held guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The appellants also pointed out that they had already remained in custody for a considerable period. They assured the Court that they would comply with any strict conditions imposed, refrain from criminal activities, and even volunteered to perform community service at the Civil Hospital, Gurugram.
The State opposed the applications, submitting that the custody period undergone by the appellants was relatively short. However, the State did not dispute that the deceased had been discharged in a stable condition, that his death occurred more than a month later due to septicemia, or the evidence given by PW-8 regarding his activities after discharge.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court allowed the applications and suspended the sentence of both appellants during the pendency of their appeals. The Court observed that the material placed before it raised arguable issues requiring consideration at the stage of final hearing, particularly regarding the connection between the injuries and the eventual cause of death.
The Bench directed the appellants to furnish heavy security and sureties before the competent Magistrate. They were also required to file affidavits undertaking that they would not commit any criminal offence during the period of suspension. The Court made it clear that involvement in any criminal case would automatically expose them to cancellation of the benefit granted.
A notable feature of the order was the condition requiring the appellants to perform community service for one month at the Civil Hospital, Gurugram. They were directed to work in different shifts and undertake duties assigned by the Chief Medical Officer, including attending to injured persons, assisting patients, and performing other miscellaneous tasks. The Civil Hospital authorities were instructed to submit a compliance report regarding their conduct and performance.
The Court further clarified that any complaint regarding the appellants’ behaviour, negligence, or irregularity while performing community service would constitute sufficient ground to recall the order suspending their sentence.
The order reflects the Court’s effort to balance the liberty of convicted persons pending appeal with the interests of justice. By imposing strict conditions and directing meaningful community service, the High Court ensured that the appellants remained accountable while their appeals awaited final adjudication.