Court exercises extraordinary power to stay conviction citing discrepancies in prosecution evidence and prolonged pendency of appeal since 2013
In a significant ruling delivered on October 26, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Mr. Farjand Ali, J., has granted a stay on the conviction of Bhanwar Singh in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 366, 451, and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The order effectively suspends the operation of the conviction until the disposal of the final appeal, allowing the petitioner to contest the forthcoming Panchayati elections.
The case originates from a 2013 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, where Bhanwar Singh was sentenced to a maximum of seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC for abduction. Although his substantive sentence was suspended shortly after conviction, the appeal has been pending with the High Court since 2013 without any prospect of early hearing due to a heavy backlog of cases.
Bhanwar Singh's counsel argued that the conviction was based on a misappreciation of evidence and highlighted material contradictions and improvements in the prosecution's case, particularly discrepancies in the testimony of the victim (P.W.-13) and another key witness (P.W.-7, Smt. Hans Kanwar). Notably, the victim had allegedly expressed willingness to accompany the principal accused in a telephone call, which was not adequately considered during the trial. Further, an affidavit and a marriage registration application tendered as evidence suggested a consensual relationship between the victim and the principal accused.
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the case record, applying the well-established principles governing the exercise of power under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to stay convictions. Emphasizing that such power is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, the Court noted the necessity of considering the prima facie sustainability of the conviction and the specific adverse consequences if the conviction were to remain operative.
Given the prolonged pendency of the appeal, the serious dents in the prosecution's case, and the fact that the operative conviction rendered Bhanwar Singh ineligible to contest the Panchayati election, the Court held that the appellant should not be deprived of his electoral rights solely due to the delay in hearing the appeal. The Court ordered that the conviction remain stayed till the appeal is finally disposed of, ensuring Bhanwar Singh's eligibility to participate in the elections if he meets all other criteria.
This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's precedents, including Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab (AIR 2007 SC 1003), which underscore that the power to stay convictions must be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances.
Bottom Line:
Stay of conviction - Power to stay conviction is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances - Court must examine prima facie sustainability of conviction and specific adverse consequences if conviction is not stayed - Where appeal was pending since 2013 with no likelihood of early hearing, material contradictions and improvements in prosecution evidence were noticed, and appellant would be disqualified from contesting Panchayati election solely because conviction remained operative, conviction was stayed till disposal of appeal.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 366, 451, 323, 34; Criminal Procedure Code Section 389
Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004121
