1. Petition against conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC — Appeal pending since 1998 — Bail rejected. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 776
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Akhilesh Kumar Sinha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 1082 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/13/00
Advocates Appeared: Sanyal S.B. : Singh Santosh : Sushobhan Kumar
The court established that in deciding the suspension of sentence pending appeal, a balance must be struck between the prima facie presumption of guilt arising from a trial court conviction and the undesirable effect of keeping a convict in jail for an excessively long period.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 34 - Suspension of sentence - Convicted person awaiting appeal - Balance between prolonged incarceration and presumption of guilt - It is not desirable for a convicted person to remain in jail pending appeal for an excessively long period - However, a conviction by a trial court allows the appellate court to normally presume that the convict is prima facie guilty for the purpose of deciding on the suspension of sentence; nonetheless, the appellate court remains free to consider if a case is fit for suspension despite such presumption. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Following a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner filed an appeal and sought suspension of sentence. The High Court rejected the prayer for bail and the application for an out-of-turn hearing, noting that appeals from 1994 were currently being processed, which suggested the petitioner's appeal would not be heard for several years.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that keeping a convicted person in jail for a long duration pending appeal is undesirable. However, this must be weighed against the presumption of guilt based on the trial court's verdict.
Issues: Whether the sentence of a convicted person should be suspended when the appellate hearing is likely to be delayed significantly, and how to balance the presumption of guilt against the hardship of prolonged incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a trial court's conviction creates a prima facie presumption of guilt for the purpose of suspending a sentence, this must be balanced against the undesirable nature of extended incarceration pending appeal.
Result: Petitioner permitted to move the High Court again for suspension of the sentence if the appeal is not taken up for final hearing within two years.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought suspension of sentence or early hearing of appeal due to prolonged incarceration. (Para 1 )
3. Prolonged incarceration pending appeal is undesirable, but appellate court presumes prima facie guilt under Section 302. (Para 2 )
4. Appellate court can suspend sentence pending appeal despite presumption of guilt; balance may justify relief after prolonged delay. (Para 2 )
5. Petitioner permitted to move High Court again for bail if appeal not heard within two years from order. (Para 2 )
6. Can an appellate court suspend sentence for a Section 302 IPC conviction during pendency of appeal?
Yes, the appellate court has discretion to suspend sentence despite the presumption of guilt, balancing the delay in hearing the appeal against that presumption. (Para 2 )
7. What remedy is available to a convicted person facing prolonged incarceration while appeal is pending?
If the appeal is not taken up for final hearing within a reasonable period, the convicted person may renew the application for suspension of sentence before the appellate court. (Para 2 )
(1) THE petitioner stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. He filed an appeal in 1998 before the High Court of Patna and then applied for suspension of the sentence. The High Court declined to do so. He then moved the High Court for taking up his appeal out of turn or to suspend the sentence on which application the impugned order has been passed. It read thus: "This is appeal of the year 1998. Earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected on 5-8-1998. The appellant went before the Apex Court in SLA No. 23 of 1999 and the prayer for bail of the appellant was From the Judgment and Order dated 21-1-2000 in CRLA No. 347 of 1998 of the High Court of Patna dismissed as withdrawn. In this Court the appeal of the year 1994 is being taken up for hearing. No case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected."
(2) IF what the High Court observed is correct, the possibility of that appeal being boarded for final hearing can only be in the year 2004. A convicted person being kept in jail pending appeal for such a long period is not a desirable course, but it is only one side of the picture! As the petitioner is found guilty by a trial court of the offence under Section 302, the appellate court can normally presume that he is prima facie guilty of the offence as for suspending the sentence despite the pendency of the appeal. Of course it is open to the appellate court, even at that stage to consider whether it is a fit case for suspending sentence despite such presumption. This is the other side of the picture. Striking a balance between the two we permit the petitioner to move the High Court again for suspension of the sentence if his appeal is not taken up for final hearing within two years from today. With these observations the special leave petition is disposed of. Court Masters
