The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday sought response from the Punjab government on a plea from AAP MLA Manjinder Singh Lalpura challenging his conviction in a 12-year-old molestation and assault case involving a woman from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community.
The bench of justice Tribhuvan Dahiya sought response by October 1.
Legislator from Khadoor Sahib, Lalpura was awarded four years in prison by a Tarn Taran court on September 10.
The court awarded the sentence to the sitting MLA under the SC/ST Act for four years, three years under Section 354, one year under Section 506 and one year under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had convicted six others also.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, was assaulted by the accused, including Lalpura and some cops from the Tarn Taran police on March 3, 2013. The incident took place when the complainant along with her family members came to a marriage palace on Goindwal Road for a function. At that time, Lalpura was a taxi driver.
His counsel, senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu said the high court has issued notice on both of his applications challenging conviction as well as seeking suspension of sentence.
{{/usCountry}}His counsel, senior advocate Anmol Rattan Sidhu said the high court has issued notice on both of his applications challenging conviction as well as seeking suspension of sentence.
{{/usCountry}}The plea in HC claims “false implication”, adding that it was due to a property dispute with one of the relatives of the complainant. The offences under the SC/ST Act are not made out as the complainant procured a caste certificate in 2018 and that there is no evidence of petitioner having knowledge about the caste of the complainant woman.
The plea says the petitioner could be disqualified, if the conviction is not stayed by the high court. If the disqualification is triggered and byelections are conducted then it would result in consequences with irreversible harm to the appellant as the same cannot be undone if the appellant is acquitted at a later stage.
“The appellant’s exclusion from the House and electoral disqualification are immediate and enduring, whereas a stay of conviction causes no irremediable prejudice to the prosecution, preserves institutional integrity and allows the appeal to run its course,” his counsel had argued before the court.