Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 386

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Shivani Tyagi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3484-3488 of 2024)
Decided on : 05-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Anil Verma, Adv. Mr. Tungesh, AOR Mr. Nagendra Kasana, AOR Mr. Rajesh Rathod, Adv. Ms. Palak Munjal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Arunachal, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Suspension of sentence of life imprisonment and enlargement on bail – Appeals by victim of acid attack – In case of short-term imprisonment for conviction of an offence, suspension of sentence is normal rule and its rejection is exception – However, position should be vice-versa in case of conviction for serious offences when invocation of power under Section 389 is invited.
(2) Acid attack has transformed itself to a gender-based violence which causes immense psychological trauma resulting in hurdle in overall development of victim.
(3) Mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. without referring to relevant factors.

Headnote:
Per C. T. Ravikumar, J.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 – Suspension of sentence of life imprisonment and enlargement on bail – Appeals by victim of acid attack – In case of short-term imprisonment for conviction of an offence, suspension of sentence is normal rule and its rejection is exception – However, position should be vice-versa in case of conviction for serious offences when invocation of power under Section 389 is invited – Mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. without referring to relevant factors – Appellant-victim was then aged about 31 years and in the incident, her body was burnt 30% to 40% – She suffered deep burn on face, chest and both hands and injuries on her were grievous in nature – Factors like nature of offence held to have committed, manner of their commission, gravity of offence and also desirability of releasing convict on bail are to be considered objectively and such consideration should reflect in consequential order passed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. – Impugned order is infected with non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant factors required for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order set aside and bail granted to private respondents cancelled – Respondents shall surrender before trial Court for the purpose of their committal to judicial custody – Appeals allowed. (Paras 4, 7, 9 to 13)
Per Rajesh Bindal, J. (Separate Assenting View)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 – Suspension of sentence of life imprisonment and enlargement on bail – Appeals by victim of acid attack – Despite spending Rs. 21 Lakhs on treatment, she still has not been cured – There is no question of acceptance of money by victim as she has challenged order of suspension of sentence of private respondents – One of principles of sentencing in criminal law is proportionality – If appropriate punishment is not awarded or if, after conviction for a heinous crime, court directs suspension of sentence without valid reasons, very purpose for which criminal justice system exists will fail – Acid attack has transformed itself to a gender-based violence which causes immense psychological trauma resulting in hurdle in overall development of victim – It is not safe to leave crime-doer on plea of settlement with victim. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
It is a case where High Court had directed suspension of sentence of respondents in an acid attack case, which will haunt victim throughout her life.
Findings of Court:
High Court had noticed and directed that convicts have offered to pay compensation to victim for grant of suspension of sentence, which when she refused to accept, was directed to be deposited in court – It was in a way kind of “Blood Money” offered by convicts to victim for which there is no acceptability in our criminal justice system.
Appellants shall surrender before trial Court for the purpose of their committal to judicial custody. This shall be done within a period of four days. In case of their failure to surrender as ordered, private respondents who are convicts shall be rearrested and committed to custody.
Result : Appeals allowed

ORDER :

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR,J.)

Leave granted.

1. In these quintuplet appeals the victim of an acid attack assails the suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, the private respondents and their consequential enlargement on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the selfsame appellant-victim in the captioned appeal, learned counsel appearing for the common first respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

3. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the “Cr.PC”) deals with the suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal against conviction and release of appellant(s) on bail. The said provision mandates for recording of reasons in writing leading to the conclusion that the convicts are entitled to get suspension of sentence and consequential release on bail. The said requirement thus indicates the legislative intention that the appellate Court invoking the power under Section 389, Cr. PC, should assess the matter objectively and that such assessment should reflect in the order.

4. We will briefly refer to some of the relevant decisions dealing with Section 389, Cr. PC. In the case of short-term imprisonment for conviction of an offence, suspension of sentence is the normal rule and its rejection is the exception. (See the decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421). However, we are of the considered view that the position should be vice-versa in the case of conviction for serious offences when invocation of power under Section 389 is invited. This Court, in the decision in Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 638, held in paragraphs 4 and 5 thus:-

5. The appellate Court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail.”

5. In the decision in Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 326 this Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 held thus:-

8. There is a need to indicate in the order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the Courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are:

1. The nature of accusation and the severi