Sentence In Heinous Offences Can't Be Suspended Merely Because Appeal Is Unlikely To Be Heard Soon : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has cautioned courts against suspending the sentences of convicts in heinous offences merely due to the pendency of appeals and the bleak possibility of their appeals being heard in the near future.

“the pendency and the possibility of the appeal being taken up in the near future cannot be a reason to order suspension of sentence…”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's judgment which had suspended the sentence of the murder convict, pending appeal, citing pendency of appeals and bleak possibility of hearing appeal in near future.

Strongly deprecating such practice of releasing the convicts of heinous crimes on grounds of pendency and delay in hearing, the Court said that allowing such release without giving due weightage to the prima facie evidence led and actual incarceration suffered by the convict exposes the fault lines of the criminal justice system.

“Whatever be the reason for the pendency of cases, the Courts cannot be complacent and release criminals convicted for heinous offences, especially when they have not undergone sentence for any considerable period, since it puts to peril the life of the civil society; exposing the fault lines of the system, which we definitely cannot cover up but should always endeavour to overcome.”, the Court observed.

Complainant-Deceased's father approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence of the main convict-A1, being the kingpin of the crime, and other accused qua the offence of murder committed by the A1 out of a rivalry in a local Sarpanch election.

The suspension of sentence was essentially because there were many criminal appeals pending in the High Court and it was impossible to dispose of the matter, at any time in the near future.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said that the High Court erred in suspending the sentence, ignoring the evidence, which had ultimately led to the A1's conviction.

The Court said that while deciding the sentence suspension pleas, the courts must be “sensitive to the sentiments of the victims' family too while being concerned with the liberty of an individual, especially when the accused stands convicted by a Court of law, no longer being enabled the presumption of innocence, like in this case.”

Sentence suspension in heinous crimes must be based on circumspection

The Court said that long pendency of appeals is a reality, which can be crucial when the convict has suffered an incarceration for some time, but that alone cannot be a ground to grant bail, when the offence committed is heinous, and the convict has undergone a meagre incarceration.

“What we indicate is the circumspection with which grant of bail has to be made with respect to persons convicted in heinous crimes. This has to be done on a prima facie examination of the evidence led, which if found to be compelling, then with due weightage given to the actual incarceration suffered by the accused juxtaposed with the reality of the long pendency of appeals in the concerned court and it cannot be a knee jerk reaction to the pendency, the burden of which is more on the citizen than on the Courts.”, the Court said.

After finding that the A1 has undergone a meagre four months' incarceration and given the gravity of the offence committed by him, coupled with the fact that presumption of innocence is not available to him after he was convicted on sufficient evidence, the Court interfered with the impugned order and set aside the bail granted to him.

“We make it clear that our observations with respect to A1's guilt is only prima facie as is our comments on the evidence against others which will not regulate the consideration of the appeal.”, the Court clarified.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Matoliya- 2217, AOR Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kshitish Bikarmia, Adv. Mr. Raghuveer Pujari, Adv. Ms. Sumati Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Ms. Roma Singh, Adv. Ms. Satyama Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anjushree Verma, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar- 1132, AOR Mr. Abhishek Gupta- 1905, AOR Ms. Sheena Taqui, Adv. Mr. Vikas Verma- 3771, AOR Ms. Sapna Verma, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Kavita Verma, Adv. Mr. Aniket Kumar Roy, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Saif, Adv. Mr. Souresh Nagar, Adv.