Suspension Of Sentence Exception In Serious Offences, S.389 CrPC Not To Be Invoked Merely Because Convict Was In Jail For Long : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that factors of the likelihood of delay and incarceration for a particular period should not be a sole consideration while deciding the plea of the accused to suspend the sentence pending the appeal against the conviction under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.

“On its perusal, we are of the opinion that factors like nature of the offence held to have committed, the manner of their commission, the gravity of the offence, and also the desirability of releasing the convict on bail are to be considered objectively and such consideration should reflect in the consequential order passed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. It is also relevant to state that the mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. without referring to the relevant factors.”, the bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.

The court held that although the suspension of sentence is a normal rule but when the accused is convicted of committing a serious offence then the suspension of sentence wouldn't be a normal rule but an exception.

"In the case of short-term imprisonment for conviction of an offence, suspension of sentence is the normal rule and its rejection is the exception. However, we are of the considered view that the position should be vice-versa in the case of conviction for serious offences when invocation of power under Section 389 is invited.", the court said.

The acid attack victim had preferred to appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision to release the accused on bail while suspending their sentence pending the appeal against their conviction by the trial court.

Reversing the findings of the High Court which had suspended the sentence of the accused without taking into consideration other factors except the factor of delay in disposing of the appeal against the conviction, the court observed that the High Court erred in releasing the accused on bail while suspending their sentence without looking into relevant factors despite the fact that the case involved an acid attack on a young woman resulting into permanent disfiguration.

The Judgment authored by Justice CT Ravikumar stated that the courts while deciding the plea under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. shouldn't pass a mechanical order by only taking into consideration the factum of the likelihood of delay in the adjudication of appeal and accused incarceration for a particular period. 

The court took reference to the Judgment of Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr. where the court had laid down certain factors to be looked into by the courts, apart from the factor of likelihood of delay and incarceration, while deciding the Section 389 Cr.P.C. application.

"1. The nature of the accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge."

The court observed that any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind.

The court clarified that each case has to be examined on its own merits and based on the parameters, to find out whether the sentence imposed on the appellant(s) concerned should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and whether the appellant(s) should be released on bail.

Noting that the High Court had not taken into account other relevant factors and the same reflects only non-application of mind and non-consideration of the relevant factors despite the fact that the case involved an acid attack on a young woman resulting in permanent disfiguration of the victim/appellant, the court held that the High Court's order was a result of a non-application of mind.

"An acid attack may completely strip off the victim of her basic human right to live a decent human life owing to permanent disfiguration. We have no hesitation to hold that in appeals involving such serious offence(s), serious consideration of all parameters should be made. Even a cursory glance of the impugned order would reveal the consideration thereunder was made ineptly. The serious nature of the offence involved was not taken into account besides the other relevant parameters for the exercise of power under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.", the court observed.

Mere fact that accused underwent incarceration for a long period not a ground to suspend sentence

The Court added :

"The mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.PC without referring to the relevant factors. We say so because there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that disposal of appeals against conviction, (especially in cases where life imprisonment is imposed for serious offences), within a short span of time may not be possible in view of the number of pending cases. In such circumstances if it is said that disregarding the other relevant factors and parameters for the exercise of power under Section 389, Cr. PC, likelihood of delay and incarceration for a particular period can be taken as a ground for suspension of sentence and to enlarge a convict on bail, then, in almost every such case, favourable invocation of said power would become inevitable. That certainly cannot be the legislative intention as can be seen from the phraseology in Section 389 Cr.PC. Such an interpretation would also go against public interest and social security.

In such cases giving preference over appeals where sentence is suspended, in the matter of hearing or adopting such other methods making an early hearing possible could be resorted. We shall not be understood to have held that irrespective of inordinate delay in consideration of appeal and long incarceration undergone the power under the said provision cannot be invoked.

In short, we are of the view that each case has to be examined on its own merits and based on the parameters, to find out whether the sentence imposed on the appellant(s) concerned should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant(s) should be released on bail."

Based on the above premise, the court allowed the victim's appeal and set aside the High Court's order granting suspension of sentence to the accused pending the appeal against the conviction. The court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court.

Case Title: Shivani Tyagi Versus State of U.P. & Anr.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 333

Click here to read/download the judgment