Parameters Laid Down In 'Dharampal Case' For Suspension Of Sentence Are Only Guidelines, Not Invariable Rule: PH High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the parameters laid down by the High Court in the Dharampal case [Dharampal vs. the State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600] for suspension of the sentence are only guidelines, and the same are not to be taken as an invariable rule.

It may be noted that in Dharampal case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in 1999, held that the murder convicts who have already spent certain duration in custody (in certain cases, 2 years as undertrial and 3 years in post conviction stage), they can be released on bail and their suspension could be suspended.

Now, the Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Pankaj Jain, while dealing with the plea of an accused who sought suspension of sentence after undergoing actual sentence of 6 years, 9 months and 4 days, on the ground of the ruling of Dharam Pal case, the Bench observed thus:

"Undoubtedly, applicant/appellant No.1 has undergone custody of more than 6 years and 9 months and the same does fall within the parameters laid down by this Court in Dharampal's case (supra) but it is trite that the directions contained in Dharampal's case (supra) are only in the nature of guidelines and the same should not be observed as an invariable rule."

The case in brief

Essentially, a murder convict, Anil (whose appeal against conviction order is pending in the HC) moved an application seeking suspension of the sentence after having undergone an actual sentence of 6 years, 9 months and 4 days.

He had been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment and order dated 30th September, 2016.

His Counsel argued that he cannot be said to have actively participated in the crime as no injury on the body of the deceased had been attributed to him. It was further submitted that the only role assigned to him was that he had driven the motor cycle to the Tehsil complex on which the co-convicts were pillion riders, thus, it was claimed that he deserved concession of suspension of sentence.

On the other hand, the State Counsel as well as Counsel for the Complainant argued that the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was given effect to, dis-entitled applicant/appellant No.1 from grant of the concession of discretionary relief. 

Denying to suspend his sentence, the Court said that the guidelines rendered in the case of Dharam Pal, can't be made applicable as an invariable rule, the Court also rejected the second limb of the argument raised by the counsel for applicant/appellant No.1 that since applicant had not been accused of causing injury to the deceased thus, he cannot be penalized for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court noted that the the same plea was raised before Trial Court also and it had been analyzed and answered and the evidence had been considered by the the Trial Court and thereafter, the HC held that as per settled law, the findings returned by the trial Court cannot be interfered at the stage of considering the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the applicant was held to be not entitled for grant of suspension of sentence at the stage, consequently, the instant application was dismissed.

Addl. Advocate General, Haryana Ankur Mittal appeared with Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana Saurabh Mago for the respondent/State. Advocate Keshav Pratap Singh appeared for the complainant.

Case title - Anil and another vs. State of Haryana

Case citation - 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 64

Click Here To Read/Download Order