New Delhi, April 10 The Supreme Court on Friday said that the parameters governing the suspension of sentence after conviction are qualitatively different from those applicable at the stage of pre-trial bail.
This observation came from a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan while setting aside the Patna High Court orders that suspended the sentences awarded to two convicts in a 2016 murder case during the pendency of their appeal.
The bench said that upon conviction, the presumption of innocence is replaced by a judicial determination of guilt, and the appellate court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 389 of the CrPC with due caution and restraint.
Section 389 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) dealt with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail.
The court delivered its verdict on two separate appeals filed by the informant in the case, challenging the high court orders that suspended the sentences awarded by the trial court to two persons during the pendency of their appeal and released them on bail.
"At the outset, it must be emphasised that the parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at the stage of pre-trial bail," the bench said.
Referring to an earlier verdict of the top court, the bench noted that it was categorically held that sentences in serious offences must not be suspended as a matter of routine and that the appellate court must apply its mind to the nature of the offence, the manner of its commission and the gravity of the findings recorded by the trial court.
"A perusal of the record indicates that the prosecution case is founded on ocular evidence, which has been duly appreciated and accepted by the trial court," the bench said.
It said that without considering this in the proper perspective, the high court erred in granting suspension of sentence to one of the accused and releasing him on bail.
It said that the reliance placed by the high court on the circumstance that the fatal shot was attributed to another co-accused, while one of the accused was convicted with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was "wholly misconceived".
Section 34 of the erstwhile IPC dealt with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
"The doctrine of constructive liability under section 34, IPC, is well settled; where an offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each participant is equally liable for the act done in execution thereof," the bench said.
It said that the high court was not justified in granting suspension of sentence in the matter.
Allowing the appeals, the bench directed both the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which the trial court would take necessary steps to secure their custody in accordance with law.
An FIR was lodged in 2016 in Buxar, alleging that the informant, along with his elder brother, was proceeding towards his village on a motorcycle when the accused caught hold of the latter and fired a gunshot at his head, causing fatal injuries.
The accused had also allegedly fired at the informant, who had narrowly escaped.
The trial court had, in August 2018, convicted some of the accused in the case after which they filed an appeal before the high court.
During the pendency of the appeal, the high court suspended the sentence and released two of the accused on bail.