2000 JTR(SC) 797
2000 3 AICLR 452 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 3564 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 3602 ; 2000 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 818 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1720 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 101 ; 2000 CrLJ 4992 ; 2000 3 EastCrC(SC) 857 ; 2000 7 JT 477 ; 2002 9 SCC 366 ; 2003 SCC(Cri) 1197 ; 2000 7 SLT 487 ; 2000 KHC 1870 ; 2000 2 KLT(Online) 1041 ; 2000 6 Supreme 540
2000(6) Supreme 540
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Ramji Prasad -Appellant
versus
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2000
SLP (Crl.) No. 3519 of 1999
Decided on 18-4-2000
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.389
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, read with the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 389, governs the adjudication of murder offences and the suspension of sentence following conviction. In this appeal by special leave, the accused was convicted under Section 302 for using a gun to commit murder, and the High Court was called upon to consider an application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The statutory framework requires that such an exceptional measure is not the norm but is reserved for rare cases, thereby limiting the discretion of the High Court when the trial court has already adjudicated guilt.
(B) The key legal principles include the presumption of innocence, the gravity of Section 302 offences, the restrictive approach to suspending sentence under extraordinary appeals, and the requirement that the accused must satisfy the High Court with clear justification to fall within an exception. The normal practice is to affirm the sentence, and mere assertions without reasoned findings are insufficient to warrant interference.
Facts of the case:
The deceased individuals were murdered on the same day, and one of the six assailants remains absconding. The trial proceeded against five accused, four of whom were acquitted, while the first respondent was found guilty of murder and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following conviction, the respondent was granted bail by a Single Judge of the High Court, prompting a special leave appeal challenging the order.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge granted bail at the first instance without recording adequate reasons, which is an exceptional and non-normal course in cases involving conviction under Section 302. The appellate court observed that no reason was shown for suspending the sentence, as the benchmark for such relief is extremely high and must be met with clear justification.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence and granting bail in a case of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code without providing any exceptional circumstances or reasons? Whether the appeal by special leave should be allowed or dismissed?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in the absence of any demonstrated exceptional grounds, the High Court cannot suspend the sentence as a matter of routine. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order setting aside the conviction and granting bail was set aside.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order dated 14.9.99 granting bail is set aside, and the respondent is directed to serve the sentence as per the trial court's judgment dated 15.7.1999.
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, read with the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 389, governs the adjudication of murder offences and the suspension of sentence following conviction. In this appeal by special leave, the accused was convicted under Section 302 for using a gun to commit murder, and the High Court was called upon to consider an application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The statutory framework requires that such an exceptional measure is not the norm but is reserved for rare cases, thereby limiting the discretion of the High Court when the trial court has already adjudicated guilt.
(B) The key legal principles include the presumption of innocence, the gravity of Section 302 offences, the restrictive approach to suspending sentence under extraordinary appeals, and the requirement that the accused must satisfy the High Court with clear justification to fall within an exception. The normal practice is to affirm the sentence, and mere assertions without reasoned findings are insufficient to warrant interference.
Facts of the case:
The deceased individuals were murdered on the same day, and one of the six assailants remains absconding. The trial proceeded against five accused, four of whom were acquitted, while the first respondent was found guilty of murder and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following conviction, the respondent was granted bail by a Single Judge of the High Court, prompting a special leave appeal challenging the order.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge granted bail at the first instance without recording adequate reasons, which is an exceptional and non-normal course in cases involving conviction under Section 302. The appellate court observed that no reason was shown for suspending the sentence, as the benchmark for such relief is extremely high and must be met with clear justification.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence and granting bail in a case of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code without providing any exceptional circumstances or reasons? Whether the appeal by special leave should be allowed or dismissed?
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in the absence of any demonstrated exceptional grounds, the High Court cannot suspend the sentence as a matter of routine. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order setting aside the conviction and granting bail was set aside.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order dated 14.9.99 granting bail is set aside, and the respondent is directed to serve the sentence as per the trial court's judgment dated 15.7.1999.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Appellant is the brother of one Madan Lal who was murdered on a day when his father Kanahya Lal was also murdered. First Respondent was one of the accused charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the aforesaid murder. We are told that one of the six assailants is still absconding and hence the trial proceeded against the remaining five accused. Four were acquitted and first Respondent was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is found that he used a gun to shoot the deceased. The trial Court convicted him as per the judgment dated 15.7.1999. He filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court and at the first instance itself he was granted bail as per order dated 14.9.99 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid said order has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. Absolutely no reason is shown by the learned Single Judge for adopting this exceptional course in a case where an accused was found guilty by the trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel arguing for the Appellant submitted that this case can fall within the exception for suspending the sentence. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on the other hand, narrated a number of broad features to support his contention that under no circumstances suspension of sentence can be granted in favour of this Appellant. We refrain from considering the merits of the rival contentions, for, it is open to the first Respondent to move the High Court and satisfy the High Court that his case would fall within the exception wherein there is justification for suspending the sentence.
5. With these observations the appeal is disposed of.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
**************