District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

If Courts Are Unable To Hear The Appeal, It Would Be A Travesty Of Justice To Keep The Appellant In Jail For A Long Time: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment, suspended the sentences of Bhima alias Manoj, Ravi @ Anil, and Munesh, who were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC for an attempted murder in 2011. Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh observed, "If the courts are unable to hear the appeal, it would be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in jail for a long time," emphasizing the undue delay in hearing appeals and the consequent need to suspend their sentences.

The appellants sought suspension of sentences, having been convicted for attempted murder. The applications, filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C., underscored prolonged trial and incarceration, along with claims of false implication.

In 2011, following a stabbing incident, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The defense highlighted a prolonged trial period and alleged false implications, arguing for the suspension of sentences.

Evidence Discrepancies: The judgment noted significant contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the incident scene and injury assessments.

Weapon Recovery and Delay in Trial: The court observed the failure to recover the weapon and the undue delay in the appeals process.

Appellants’ Background: Consideration was given to their age during the incident and clean antecedents.

Basing her decision on precedents and the facts presented, Justice Singh ordered the suspension of sentences, setting bail conditions for the appellants, including restrictions on leaving the country and engaging in criminal activities.

Date of Decision: 28 March 2024

Bhima alias Manoj, Ravi @ Anil, Munesh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Latest Legal News