The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice J.B. Padriwala of the Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Ors held that if the accused person subsequently looks to be entitled to an acquittal by this Court, he should not be put behind bars for an extended period of time until the appeal's conclusion—which often takes a very long time to decide and dispose of. But in order for the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that the conviction may not be valid, it is necessary to look into something that is very apparent or gross from the record when determining whether the convict has a fair chance of being acquitted.
Brief facts:
The Respondent No. 1,3 and 4 with the other six co-accused were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, and 506 respectively read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Out of all the accused facing trial, only Respondents No. 1,3, and 4 were held guilty by the trial court for committing the murder of the Appellant’s brother, and the other co-accused were held to be acquitted.
Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the High Court against the trial court’s decision by Respondents No. 1,3, and 4. However, the three Respondents requested the High Court to grant them bail until their appeals were disposed of and the High Court suspended the substantive order of sentence of all the three Respondents and granted bail to them. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the brother of the deceased filed an appeal before the present court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the High Court committed a grave error in releasing the three convicts on bail by exercising the power under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was further contended that once the accused is convicted of a grave offense, such as murder, the presumption of innocence disappears, and the High Court is expected to be very slow in granting bail. Also, the entire case of the prosecution is based on ocular evidence.
Contentions of the Respondent No. 1,3, and 4:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that the High Court has committed no error in suspending the order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts. Thereafter, it was contended that the prosecution's entire case is exceedingly dubious and politically driven. The prosecution has obscured the real origin of the occurrence. At last, it was contended that there is a very good possibility that the convicts will be acquitted in their criminal appeals, and there is nothing wrong with allowing them to stay on bail awaiting the ultimate disposition of their separate criminal appeals.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the objective behind the suspension of sentence after conviction is to postpone or defer the execution of the punishment. The aim of delay of sentencing cannot be fulfilled by keeping the accused person in jail; hence, as a natural result of the postponement of execution, the convict may be extended on bail until additional instructions are issued.
It was furthermore observed by the court that in our country, the theory of criminal jurisprudence is based on the principle that the accused is considered to be innocent until and unless he is held guilty by a court. When the accused proves guilty, the assumption of innocence is eliminated. Similarly, if the accused is found not guilty, the presumption of innocence is reinforced.
It was noted that while determining whether an accused person has a reasonable prospect of acquittal, a material factor must be considered. In other words, anything that is very obvious or outrageous on the face of the record leads the Court to believe that the conviction may not be sustained. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the level of Section 389 of the CrPC in order to find some discrepancies or flaws in the prosecution's case. Such a strategy would be incorrect.
It was furthermore noted that the High Court has taken into consideration the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report, etc which were to be taken into consideration at the time of the final hearing of the appeal filed by the convicts. The Apex Court disagreed with the contentions made on behalf of the convicts.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the High Court committed a grave error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and granting bail to them.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Top Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Ors
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 426 SC
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331- 1332 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR
Mr. Agastya Sen, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR, Mr. C. Thangaraja, Adv., Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, Adv., Mr. K. Kumaravadivel, Adv., Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
