The Uttarakhand High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of a vaccine scientist found guilty of abetment to suicide, citing national interest and the need to protect vital contributions to public health. The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the scientist against his conviction by a Sessions Court. It observed that denying him the opportunity to resume his role in a national immunisation programme would result in irreversible injustice.
The case arose from the death of the appellant’s wife in 2015, a few months after their marriage. While employed at Pantnagar University, she died by suicide at her maternal home. A note recovered allegedly attributed responsibility to her husband, who at the time was working in Hyderabad. He was subsequently arrested and, after spending over three months in judicial custody, was granted bail.
Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted him under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide) but acquitted him of charges under Section 304-B (dowry death) and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court imposed a sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.
The petitioner, a PhD-holder in biotechnology from IIT Kharagpur and a senior vaccine scientist at Indian Immunologicals Limited (IIL), a public sector entity involved in critical human and veterinary vaccine production, moved the High Court under Section 389(1) CrPC. He sought suspension of his conviction, arguing that his ineligibility to continue work due to the conviction was adversely impacting projects of national importance. His counsel urged that the case warranted an exception, as his continued work was essential for public health.
Justice Ravindra Maithani referred to key precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, including Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, to hold that appellate courts have the authority to suspend convictions where failure to do so could result in serious injustice or hamper broader public interest.
Highlighting the scientific role of the petitioner, the Court noted, "This was a greater issue of public health and national interest. In light of the afore-stated reasons, the court was of the view that this was a fit case in which the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, should be suspended." It was observed that denying the petitioner the ability to work in the field of immunology would compromise both his professional standing and the larger objective of public health, thereby constituting exceptional circumstances meriting judicial relief.
In view of the above, the High Court suspended both the conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The order enables the petitioner to resume his scientific duties at Indian Immunologicals Limited, allowing continuity in essential immunisation work serving the national interest.
Picture Source :
