High Court directed convicts to pay Rs 25 lakh ‘blood money’ for which there is no acceptability in our criminal justice system: Apex Court cancels suspension of life sentence and enlargement on bail of 5 men, who attacked woman with acid that left her permanently disfigured
Justices C.T. Ravikumar & Rajesh Bindal [05-04-2024]

Read Order: Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr [SC- Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 29, 2024: In a case of acid attack where a 31-year-old woman suffered permanent disfiguration, the Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of five accused men who were earlier released by the Allahabad High Court as they had offered to pay Rs 25 lakh.

The Top Court also noted that instead of considering the parameters laid down by the Apex Court for grant of bail or suspension of sentence, the High Court had noticed and directed that the convicts have offered to pay compensation to the victim for grant of suspension of sentence, which when she refused to accept, was directed to be deposited in the court.

The Supreme Court also noted that it was in a way kind of “Blood Money” offered by the convicts to the victim for which there is no acceptability in our criminal justice system.

A Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal was considering the quintuplet appeals of the victim of the acid attack assailing the suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, the private respondents and their consequential enlargement on bail. Justice Ravikumar and Justice Bindal penned down separate but concurrent judgments.

The private respondents in the appeals, five in numbers, were convicted finding guilty of offences, including under Sections 307/149 and 326A/149, IPC. The appellant- victim was then aged about 31 years and, in the incident, she suffered an attack with sulfuric acid and her body was burnt 30 to 40 percent. PW-6, Dr. Uttam Jain revealed that she suffered deep burn on the face, chest and both hands and injuries on her were grievous in nature.

Referring to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) which deals with the suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal against conviction and release of appellant(s) on bail, Justice Ravikumar made it clear that this provision mandates for recording of reasons in writing leading to the conclusion that the convicts are entitled to get suspension of sentence and consequential release on bail.

Reference was also made to the judgments in Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [LQ/SC/1999/557]; Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors. [LQ/SC/2004/1084]; Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr. [LQ/SC/2005/934]; Khilari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [LQ/SC/2009/146].

“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.PC without referring to the relevant factors”, the Bench said while also adding, “...we are deeply peeved on perusing the impugned judgment, for 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 into permanent disfiguration.”

Noting that the impugned order was infected with non-application of mind and non- consideration of the relevant factors required for invocation of power under Section 389 in the light of the settled position of law, he held, “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, Cr. PC.”

Justice Bindal stated that the disfigurement of the face of the victim, as was evident from the photographs placed on record, could not even be seen. “It is a case in which after hearing the arguments raised by the appellant and going through the paper book our conscience was shocked. By a short order we granted the leave in the matters and allowed the appeals”, he added.

The High Court had ordered suspension of sentence of the respondents, who had been awarded life imprisonment was that the counsel for the accused submitted that in the evidence it had come on record that about Rs 21 lakh had been spent on her treatment as she suffered disfigurement of her face. The High Court had accepted the offer made by them and directed that, over and above, the amount of compensation paid by the District Legal Services Authority to the victim, the private respondents had offered to pay a sum of Rs 25 lakh for her treatment.

However, Justice Bindal noticed that there was no question of acceptance of money by the victim as she had challenged the order of suspension of sentence of the private respondents.

Noticing the fact that the High Court had ruled that the convicts had offered to pay compensation to the victim for grant of suspension of sentence, which when she refused to accept, was directed to be deposited in the court. “It was in a way kind of “Blood Money” offered by the convicts to the victim for which there is no acceptability in our criminal justice system”, he said.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench ordered the appellants to surrender before the trial Court for the purpose of their committal to judicial custody within 4 days.