SHYAM NARAIN PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

                   [2014] 8 S.C.R. 923


                SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY                            A
                             v.
                     STATE OF U.P.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1515 of 2014)
                      JULY 22, 2014.
                                                               B
       [M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.)

    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

      s. 389 (1) - Prayer for stay of conviction - Appellant c
convicted u/s 302 /PC etc. - Prayer declined by High Court -
Held: It has been cautioned time and again that court should
be very wary in staying the conviction and it shall be done
only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury
coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice 0
-- The plea that appellant will be deprived of his source of
livelihood if conviction is not stayed, cannot be appreciated -
- High Court has rightly held that it is not a very rare and
exceptional case for staying the conviction.

     The appellant, a Principal, was convicted u/s 147,        E
148, 302/144 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for
life by trial court. The prayer of the appellant for staying
the judgment of conviction was declined by High Court.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court                           F
     HELD: 1.1. '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 G
stay of operation of the effects of the declaration of being
guilty. [para 7) [926-E-F]


                            923                                H
    924     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A      1.2. 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. Even for suspension of the
  sentence, the court has to record the reasons in writing
B u/s 389(1) Cr.PC. If the convict is involved in crimes which
  are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of
  sentence, stay of conviction would have serious impact
  on the public perception of the integrity institution. Such
  orders definitely will shake the public confidence in
c judiciary. Therefore, it has been cautioned time and again
  that the court should be very wary in staying the
  conviction and it shall be done only in very rare and
  exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with
  irreversible consequences resulting in injustice. [para 8-
D 9) [926-G; 927-A, D-E]
         Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali 2006 (8)
    Suppl. SCR 1156 = 2007 (1) SCC 673, Navjot Singh Sidhu
    v. State of Punjab and another 2007 (1) SCR 1143 = 2007
    (2) SCC 574; State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti
E   Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar
    2012 (9) SCR 601 = 2012 (12) SCC 384; State of
    Maharashtra v. Gajanan and another 2003 (12) SCC 432,
    and Union of India v. Afar Singh and another 2003 (12) sec
    434 - relied on.
F
      1.3. The plea that the appellant will be deprived of his
  source of livelihood if the conviction is not stayed cannot
  be appreciated. The High Court has discussed in detail
  the background of the appellant, the nature of the crime,
G 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. [para 13) [929-8-C]
                        Case Law Reference :
     2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1156      relied on        para 10
H
     SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P.                   925


 2007 (1) SCR 1143               relied on        para 10         A

 2012 (9) SCR 601                relied on        para 11
 2003 (12) sec 432               relied on        para 12
 2003 (12) sec 434               relied on        para 12         B
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1515 of 2014.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2013 in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 17550 of 2013 in Criminal          c
Appeal No. 3239 of 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

    Ashok Panigrahi, R.N. Tripathi, Santosh Kumar, Ashmi
Mohan, Tuleka Mukherjee (Anuradha & Associates) for the           D
Appellants.

    R. K. Das, Pramod Swarup, Sibo Sankar Misra, Pareena
Swarup, Ameet Singh, Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma for the
Respondent.
                                                                  E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    KURIAN, J.: 1. Delay condoned.

    2. Leave granted.
                                                                  F
     3. Scope of stay of conviction under Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'Cr.PC'), is the subject matter of this appeal.

     4. Appellant was tried along with six others by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh. He         G
was convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read
with Section 1208 IPC with life imprisonment and fine. He was
granted bail by order dated 29.08.2012 by the High Court of
                                                                  H
    926      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                . [2014j 8 S.C.R.


A   Judicature at Allahabad. Thereafter, the appellant filed an'
    application for staying the judgment of conviction which was
    dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.08.2013.

         5. By a separate order, we have cancelled the bail granted
B to  the  appellant in view of non-compliance of first proviso to
  Section 389(1) Cr.PC and the matter has been remitted to the
  High Court for fresh consideration. Be that as it may, the High
  Court has considered in detail the application made by the
  petitioner for stayirig the conviction and has declined the relief.
C 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 Servic~s Selection Board, Allahabad.
D
         6. 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.
E
         7. '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,
F   he is asking for stay of operation of the effects of the
    declaration of being guilty.

       8. 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.
G 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
H circumstances.
           SHYAM .NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P.                  927
                   . [KURIAN JOSEPH, J.)

          9. It may be noticed that even for the suspension of the        A
    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 C9mmission of India and observations of this Court
    in various judgments, as per Act 25 of 2005. It was regarding         B
    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.        c
.   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 turpjtude. If the convict is involved in crimes
    which. are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of
                                                                          0
    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       E
    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.

         10. In Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhabhouma S. Bagali1,
    a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the power to          F
    stay the conviction ... "should be exercised only in exceptional
    circumstances where failure to stay the conviction would lead
    to injustice and irreversible consequences". In Navjot Singh
    Sidhu v. State of Punjab an.d another, following Ravikant S.
    Patil case (supra), at paragraph-6, this Court held as follows:       G

          "6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate
          court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But
    1.   c2001) 1 sec 673.
    2.   (2007) 2 sec ·574_                                               H
    928        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014) 8 S.C.R.


A         the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically
          draw the attention of the appellate court to the
          consequences that may arise if the conviction is not
          stayed. Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the
          specific consequences that would follow on account of the
s         conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of
          stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can
          be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special
          facts of the case."

       11. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption
C Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar3, referring
  also to the two decisions cited above, it has been held at
  paragraph-15 that:

          "15 .... the appellate court in an exceptional case, may put
D         the conviction in abeyance along with the sentence, but
          such power must be exercised with great circumspection
          and caution, for the purpose of which, the applicant must
          satisfy the court as regards the evil that. _is likely to befall
          him, if the said conviction is not suspended. The court has
E         to consider all the facts as are pleaded by the applicant,
          in a judicious manner and examine whether the facts and
          circumstances involved in the case are such, that they
          warrant such a course of action by it. The court additionally,
          must record in writing, its reasons for granting such relief.
F         Relief of staying the order of conviction cannot be granted
          only on the ground that an employee .may lose his-job, if
          the same is not done."

        12. In State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and another4, and
    Union of India v. Afar Singh and another6, cases under the
G   Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this court had to deal with


    3.         sec 384.
         2012 (12)
    4.         sec 432.
         (2003) 12
H s. (2003) 12 sec 434.
     SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P.                       929
                 [KURIAN·, J.]

specific situation of loss of job and it has been held that it is       A
not one of exceptional cases for staying the conviction.

      13. 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             8
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     C
exceptional case for staying the conviction.

     14. 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           D
this order and they shall have no bearing while hearing the
appeal.
Rajendra Prasad                                    Appeal dismissed