Applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands, says Delhi HC while refusing to suspend order of conviction passed against former Congress MLA Dayananad Chandela charged with attempted murder
Justice SwaranaKanta Sharma [10-05-2024]


Read Order: DAYA NAND CHANDELA v. STATE[HC- CRL.A. 835/2010]


Tulip Kanth


New Delhi, May 14, 2024: The Delhi High Court has upheld the jail term of former Congress MLA DayananadChandela in an attempt to murder case after noting that his earlier two applications for suspension of order of conviction were dismissed by the predecessor Benches with detailed reasons.


The incident is of the year 2008 regarding an attack on the residence of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). When the police Officials reached the Hospital, one Sudesh Chandela i.e., PW-2 complainant/victim/injured informed them that they had loaned a sum of Rs 50,000 to an individual named Sufi, who had subsequently absconded without repayment. The complainant/victim had rented the slum house of Sufi. 


Thereafter, the neighbours of the complainant/victim had informed him and his companions that one Manoj i.e., the co-accused herein had come and he had put a lock on the said house (jhuggi) which had prompted the complainant Sudesh Chandela and his other companion to go to Dayanand Chandela's residence i.e., the present applicant/appellant as co-accused Manoj was his associate. The dispute pertained to some financial claims against Sufi. Later, the present applicant/appellant i.e., Dayanand Chandela had arrived at the scene in a car and had taken out a sword. 


Upon seeing the situation escalate, Sudesh Chandela and his other companions fled towards the house of the complainant for safety. However, the present applicant/appellant i.e., Dayanand Chandela, along with three other co-accused had followed them into their house and thereafter Dayanand Chandela had struck Sudesh Chandela/injured/victim with a sword blow, which Sudesh had somehow managed to block with his right hand. 


Further, as per the allegations, co-accused Nawab had also attacked him with a sword, while co-accused Manoj and Meghraj had assaulted the complainant/victim/injured. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had also targeted Sudesh’s father, uncle and brother. The FIR was registered under Section 452/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).


The appellant had approached the Delhi High Court with an application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking suspension of order of conviction on the ground that he wishes to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024, which as per the applicant, is a fresh ground and a new circumstance, which can be considered by this Court. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the voting was scheduled to take place on 25.05.2024.


The Single-Judge Bench of Justice SwaranaKanta Sharma elucidated on the law relating to conviction and referred to the judgments  Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr. [LQ/SC/2007/86] and Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh[LQ/SC/2023/1511]  to reaffirm that granting stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception, to be resorted to in a rare case, depending upon the peculiar facts of a case.


The Bench also noticed that the present application moved by the applicant/appellant was his third application for suspension of the order of conviction and the Predecessor Benches of this Court vide detailed judgments had recorded detailed reasons to dismiss the earlier applications filed by the present applicant, wherein also, he had sought suspension of order of conviction, on similar grounds.


The Bench noticed that prima facie, the record revealed that the applicant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 452/307/34 of IPC and the Trial Court held, after conclusion of trial, that the present applicant had assaulted the injured/victims with a sword and had caused grave injuries to them. The record also revealed that the material witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. One of the offences for which the applicant had been convicted is Section 307 of IPC i.e., attempt to murder.

“In case the applicant was aggrieved by the said orders, he could have approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of a Special Leave Petition in case he genuinely wished to contest the elections”, the Bench said.


The Bench was of the opinion that if the applicant genuinely wished to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections as he states that he wants to contest as an independent candidate and serve the society, he could have moved the present application much earlier and could have sought early hearing of his appeal in view of the fact that his similar applications on similar grounds were rejected vide detailed judgments. 


Though this appeal was pending before the Court since the year 2010 and the applicant was also aware of the fact that he cannot contest elections due to his conviction in the present case, he could have requested the Court to take his case for final disposal which he did not do and rather himself withdrew his application for early hearing of the appeal.


The High Court also opined that the applicant had not approached this Court with clean hands, since he had nowhere disclosed in the present application that on two earlier occasions i.e. in the years 2015 and 2020, similar applications filed by the applicant seeking suspension of conviction on the same grounds had been dismissed by this Court. 


Furthermore, a similar application moved by the co-accused was also dismissed by this Court in the year 2017. This fact was also not disclosed by the petitioner herein.


Thus, finding no reason to suspend the order of conviction, the Bench dismissed the application. 

Add a Comment