The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the conviction and sentence of vaccine scientist Akash Yadav, who was found guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife. The Court observed that the scientist’s continued exclusion from his research work due to the conviction could adversely affect matters of public health and national interest [Akash Yadav v. State].
Justice Ravindra Maithani passed the interim order on July 11 while hearing Yadav’s appeal against his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Yadav, a PhD holder from IIT Kharagpur and a Senior Manager at Indian Immunologicals Limited, contended that the conviction was preventing him from participating in vaccine research. Highlighting the broader implications of his absence from scientific work, the Court observed:
“What is stated in the instant case is that the appellant is a Scientist, who is into the research work of vaccine development, and due to his conviction, he is not allowed to join his duties, which, otherwise, is also greater issue of public health and national interest.”
Yadav was previously tried for dowry-related offences, including dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While the trial court acquitted him of those charges, he was convicted under Section 306 IPC based on a suicide note purportedly left by his wife, blaming him for her death.
Following his conviction, Yadav filed an appeal before the High Court and sought a stay on the conviction and sentence, arguing that the conviction was unjustified and that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients of the offence. He also submitted that his ongoing research in vaccine development was of critical public significance.
The State opposed the plea, citing the suicide note left by Yadav’s wife. However, the Court noted that appellate courts have the discretion to suspend convictions in exceptional circumstances where continuing effects of the conviction would cause irreparable harm. In doing so, it relied on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab.
Concluding that the case met the threshold for such exceptional relief, the High Court ruled:
“Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case in which the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, should be suspended. Accordingly, the stay application deserves to be allowed. The order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.”
Notably, Yadav had already been granted bail and released from jail on April 7.
Advocate Harshit Sanwal represented the appellant, while Additional Government Advocate V.S. Rawat appeared for the State.
Picture Source :
