Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and releasing on bail – Acid attack on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentence and enlarged them on bail – Interference:
Held: (per C. T. Ravikumar, J) Mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period and likelihood of delay in disposal of cases, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power u/s. 389 without referring to the relevant factors – Each case has to be examined on its own merits and based on the given parameters – Acid attack may completely strip off the victim of her basic human right to live a decent human life owing to permanent disfiguration – Impugned judgment reflects only non-application of mind and non-consideration of the relevant factors required for invocation of power u/s. 389 despite the fact that the case involved an acid attack on a young woman resulting into permanent disfiguration – High Court took into account the offer made on behalf of the convicts that they would give a payment of Rs. 25 lakhs, and that the evidence that the victim had incurred an amount of Rs. 21
* Authors
lakhs for her treatment besides the period of incarceration and also the delay likely to occur in the consideration of appeal – Serious nature of the offence involved was not taken into account besides the other relevant parameters for the exercise of power u/s. 389 – Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside, and the bail granted to the accused is cancelled [Paras 9-12] – Held: (per Rajesh Bindal,J) (Supplementing) One of the principles of sentencing, being proportionality, if the appropriate punishment is not awarded or if, after conviction for a heinous crime, the court directs the suspension of the sentence without valid reasons, the very purpose for which the criminal justice system exists would fail – High Court directed the suspension of the sentence of the accused on payment of ₹ 25 lakhs to the victim – Amount was not accepted by the victim and the convicts could not be released from the jail – Also despite spending ₹ 21 lakhs on the treatment, victim still has not been cured – Infirmity of the court is evident from the fact that the High Court went on to modify the earlier order and noted that a Demand Draft having been handed over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused be released on bail subject to Surety Bonds – Order passed in the Correction Application does not suggest that there was any consideration of the parameters laid down for grant of bail or suspension of sentence, instead, the High Court noticed and directed that the convicts have offered to pay compensation to the victim for grant of suspension of sentence, which when she refused to accept, was directed to be deposited in the court – It was in a way kind of “Blood Money” offered by the convicts to the victim for which there is no acceptability in the criminal justice system [Paras 6, 7, 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.