Summary
Suspension of life sentences for an acid attack required written reasons addressing the offence’s gravity, manner and other relevant factors. A compensation offer, time served and likely appeal delay could not replace that assessment. The High Court ignored the victim’s permanent disfigurement and applied the statutory test inadequately. The victim’s appeals were allowed, suspension and bail set aside, and the five convicts directed to surrender within four days, failing which they were to be arrested. Conviction appeals remained undecided.
Issues
- Whether the High Court applied the proper Section 389 test for suspending life sentences.
- Whether compensation and delay justified the orders without examination of relevant factors.
- What custody directions followed without deciding the conviction appeals.
Provisions considered
- Section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Suspension pending appeal requires objective consideration and recorded reasons; serious convictions require careful assessment of gravity, manner, evidence and desirability of release. (¶¶ Ravikumar J.3, Ravikumar J.4, Ravikumar J.5, Ravikumar J.6, Ravikumar J.9, Ravikumar J.10, Ravikumar J.11, Ravikumar J.12)
- Sections 307/149 and 326A/149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The private respondents’ life sentences arose from convictions including these acid-attack offences; the merits of their pending conviction appeals were expressly reserved. (¶¶ Ravikumar J.7, Ravikumar J.8, Ravikumar J.11)
Held
- Section 389 requires written reasons showing objective consideration, and suspension is not routine for serious offences. Nature and manner of the offence, gravity and other relevant factors must inform the decision; the treatment of short-term imprisonment cannot simply be transposed to life sentences for heinous crimes. (¶¶ Ravikumar J.3, Ravikumar J.4, Ravikumar J.9)
- A period of incarceration and expected delay in hearing a life-conviction appeal cannot by themselves displace the relevant statutory assessment. The Court did not exclude relief where incarceration and appellate delay are inordinate; each case must be examined on its merits, and early hearing may be an appropriate response. (¶ Ravikumar J.9)
- The High Court principally relied on the convicts’ collective Rs.25 lakh offer, custody and expected delay, without adequately considering the grave acid attack and permanent disfigurement. That non-application of mind invalidated suspension and consequential bail. The Supreme Court made no finding on the merits of the pending conviction appeals. (¶¶ Ravikumar J.7, Ravikumar J.8, Ravikumar J.10, Ravikumar J.11, Ravikumar J.12)
- In concurrence, Bindal J. emphasised that willingness or capacity to compensate cannot buy suspension in a heinous case. The victim had declined the drafts, and subsequent court deposit did not cure the failure to apply the correct factors. He also distinguished review of an unjustified original bail order from cancellation based on later misconduct. (¶¶ Bindal J.2.1, Bindal J.3, Bindal J.4, Bindal J.6, Bindal J.7, Bindal J.8, Bindal J.12, Bindal J.13, Bindal J.14, Bindal J.15, Bindal J.16)
- The victim’s five appeals were allowed and the suspension order and bail set aside. The convicts must surrender before the trial court within four days, recorded in the concurrence’s reproduction of the short order as on or before 9 April 2024; failure requires arrest and committal to custody. (¶¶ Ravikumar J.12, Ravikumar J.13, Bindal J.2)
Result
Victim’s appeals allowed; sentence suspension set aside and all five convicts’ bail cancelled. Surrender within four days (by 9 April 2024), failing which arrest and custody directed. Conviction appeals remain for independent decision.