TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Punjab MLA convicted under SC/ST Act moves HC

Was sentenced to four-year rigorous imprisonment
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the judicial response to crimes must be commensurate with the severity of the offence. - File photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

A fortnight after Tarn Taran Additional Sessions Judge convicted AAP MLA Manjinder Singh under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the verdict. Among other things, he is also seeking suspension of the conviction and sentence during the pendency of his appeal.

Advertisement

Manjinder Singh was sentenced to four-year rigorous imprisonment, prompting him to file the appeal before the HC. In his plea, the MLA said he was a sitting legislator from a flood-affected constituency and argued that immediate suspension of his sentence was necessary to ensure uninterrupted “relief coordination and oversight of ongoing disaster-response measures”.

Advertisement

The plea, placed before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate certain glaring features of the prosecution’s case, which, according to the appeal, cast a “cloud over the truthfulness of the prosecution story” and resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.

The application also stated that the appellant had already undergone more than seven-month imprisonment during the trial and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, making suspension of the sentence crucial under the prevailing circumstances.

The Bench was told the prosecution case was based on allegations by a women. She alleged the appellant and others, while attending her cousin’s marriage, “allegedly outraged her modesty and thereafter assaulted her family”.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement