In CRIM. APPEAL Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023-SC- HC committed serious error in suspending substantive order of sentence of  life imprisonment: Top Court directs 3 murder convicts, who were released on bail by Patna HC, to surrender before Trial Court
Justices M.R.Shah & J.B. Pardiwala [02-05-2023]

Read Judgment: OMPRAKASH SAHNI Vs. JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 2, 2023: Affirming that the presumption of innocence gets erased when the accused is held guilty, the Supreme Court has set aside the orders passed by the Patna High Court whereby three murder convicts were directed to be released on bail.

“...we are unable to accept the contention coming from the convicts through their learned Senior Counsel that, it would be meaningless, improper and unjust to keep them behind the bars for a pretty long time till they are found not to be guilty of the charges”, the Division Bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice J.B. Pardiwala asserted.

The appeals were filed are at the instance of the original first informant (brother of the deceased) and were directed against a common order passed by the Patna High Court by which, the High Court suspended the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court on three respondents-convicts and ordered their release on bail pending the final disposal of the two criminal appeals.

The three respondents were held guilty by the Trial Court, of the offence of murder of the brother of the appellant. The other co-accused were ordered to be acquitted. 

It was the appellant’s case that once the accused stood convicted for a very serious offence like murder, the presumption of innocence would no longer exist and the High Court is expected to be very slow in granting bail. As per the appellant, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned order thereby releasing the three convicts on bail pending final disposal of their respective appeals by suspending the substantive order of their sentence, in exercise of power under Section 389 of CrPC.

As per the Bench, the endeavour on the part of the Court, 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. 

If ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and disposal. 

“However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very 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 Bench said.

The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach, the Bench added.

Noting that the High Court did something impermissible, the Bench said, “High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts.”

The  Bench was also unable to agree with the contentions coming from the counsel for the convicts that, either there was absolutely no case against the convicts or that the evidence against them was so weak and feeble in nature, that, ultimately in all probabilities the proceedings would terminate in their favour. 

Thus allowing the appeals, the Bench held, “The convicts are ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of three days from today.”