Section 389 CrPC | Sentence Can Be Suspended In Appeal Only If Convict Has Fair Chances Of Acquittal : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that in order to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. It also added that at the stage of Section 389 CrPC, the Appellant...
The Supreme Court has held that in order to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. It also added that at the stage of Section 389 CrPC, the Appellant Court ought not to re-appreciate evidence and pick loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the order of suspension of sentence passed by the Patna High Court and directed the convicted persons who were enlarged on bail to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of three days from the date of judgment.
Factual Background
The three respondents were convicted by the Trial Court and were sentenced under Sections 302(murder), 120B, 506 read with Section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. They were held guilty for the murder of the appellant’s brother. While the appeal was pending before the Patna High Court, it suspended the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and granted them bail. It noted that the inordinate delay in filing of the report which led to the FIR was a valid going for doubting the prosecution’s case -
“In the abovementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, inordinate delay in filing of the written report leading to registration of First Information Report appears to be a valid ground for doubting the case of the prosecution, for the purpose of exercise of discretion under Article 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Suspension of sentence pending the appeal, release of appellant on bail).”
Aggrieved by the order under Section 389 CrPC, the complainant approached the Supreme Court.
Submissions made by the parties
Advocate R. Chandrachud, appearing for the appellant, submitted that once the accused is convicted of a serious office like murder, the presumption of innocence would no longer exist and the High Court should exercise caution in granting bail. It was also argued that while considering the plea for suspension of sentence the respondents, the High Court, in essence, had re-appreciated the evidence.
Senior Advocate VK Shukla, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the prosecution’s case was doubtful; politically motivated and his clients were falsely implicated. It stated that until and unless the order of the High Court was absolutely vague or perverse, it ought not to be disturbed.
Analysis by the Supreme Court
At the outset, referring to Section 389 CrPC and the meaning of ‘suspend’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, the Court noted that the idea behind suspension of sentence after conviction is to defer execution of sentence. Since the purpose of deferment cannot be achieved by detaining the convict, they may be enlarged on bail.
The Court affirmed the argument of the Counsel for the appellate regarding presumption of innocence. It observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of the competent jurisdiction. However, once the accused is held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased. Again, if the accused is acquitted, then the presumption of innocence gets further fortified.
The Court observed that for suspending sentence under Section 389 CrPC it is to be seen as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. There should be something apparent or gross on the face of record to arrive at the prima facie satisfaction that the conviction cannot be sustained. It added that the Appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the Section 389 CrPC.
The Court noted that in the present case the High Court has gone into issues such as political rivalry, delay in lodging fir, over-writings in the FIR etc. These aspects are not to be considered at the stage of hearing an application under Section 389 CrPC. Thus, it concluded that the High Court had erred in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the respondents and releasing them on bail. In this regard, it also remarked that as the prosecuting agency the State was expected to challenge the order passed by the High Court, but for some reason it chose not to. In its place the complainant had to file the present appeal.
Case details
Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary And Anr Etc.| Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023| 2nd May, 2023| Justice MR Shah and Justice JB Pardiwala
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 389- to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable-the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal - Para 33
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 389- The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach - Para 33