Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Acid Attack Case: Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 343

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a court suspend the sentence of convicts in a heinous crime like an acid attack, especially when the victim has suffered severe disfigurement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, focusing on the principles governing the suspension of sentences and grant of bail in serious criminal cases. The Court examined whether the High Court had correctly applied these principles when it suspended the life imprisonment of individuals convicted in an acid attack case. This judgment emphasizes the need for a careful and objective assessment of relevant factors before suspending sentences, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with both judges authoring separate but concurring opinions.

Case Background

The case involves a horrific acid attack on the appellant, Shivani Tyagi. The private respondents, five in number, were convicted for offenses including those under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The victim, then 31 years old, suffered severe burns on her face, chest, and both hands, with 30 to 40 percent of her body affected by the sulfuric acid. The injuries were classified as grievous by medical professionals.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily focused on Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), which deals with the suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. The Court emphasized that this provision mandates the appellate court to record reasons in writing for suspending a sentence. This requirement indicates that the court must objectively assess the matter, and this assessment should be reflected in the order. The court also referred to previous decisions to highlight the principles governing the grant of bail and suspension of sentence, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Relevant legal provisions mentioned in the judgment:

• Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC): This section outlines the procedure for suspending a sentence pending an appeal and releasing the appellant on bail. It requires the appellate court to record reasons in writing for such decisions.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the offense of attempt to murder.
• Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid.

Arguments

Appellant (Victim):

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order suspending the sentence and granting bail was flawed due to non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant factors.
• The appellant emphasized the severity of the offense, the grievous nature of the injuries, and the permanent disfiguration caused by the acid attack.
• The appellant contended that the High Court’s decision was primarily based on the convicts’ offer to pay compensation, which is not a valid ground for suspending a sentence in a heinous crime.

Respondents (Convicts):

• The respondents argued that they had voluntarily offered to pay ₹25 lakhs to the victim for her medical treatment.
• They contended that they had already spent ₹21 lakhs on her treatment, and the offer was made without prejudice to their defense.
• They highlighted the period of incarceration and the likely delay in the final hearing of their appeals as reasons for suspension of sentence.

State of Uttar Pradesh:

• The State counsel objected to the offer made by the private respondents.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting that the High Court’s decision was primarily based on the offer of compensation, which is not a valid ground for suspension of sentence in a heinous crime like an acid attack. The appellant also successfully argued that the High Court did not consider the relevant factors such as the gravity of the offense and the permanent disfiguration caused to the victim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence of life imprisonment and granting bail to the convicts in an acid attack case, based primarily on their offer to pay compensation to the victim and the likely delay in the hearing of their appeals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision. These authorities were used to establish the principles and parameters for suspending sentences and granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.

• Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421: This case was cited to highlight that while suspension of sentence is the normal rule for short-term imprisonments, the position should be vice-versa for serious offenses.
• Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 638: This case emphasized the need for the appellate court to record reasons for suspending a sentence and granting bail, indicating that such orders should not be passed as a matter of routine.
• Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 326: This case highlighted that the court should consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge before granting bail.
• Khilari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 23: This case was cited to show that the Supreme Court has previously interfered with orders suspending sentences for non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant aspects.
• State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175: This case stated that in appeals against conviction involving serious offenses like murder, the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail should be considered with reference to relevant factors.
• Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 571: This case was cited to show the court’s concern regarding the increase in acid attacks and the need for stringent action against those supplying acid without proper authorization.
• Suresh Chandra Jana vs State of West Bengal and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 466: This case emphasized that acid attacks have transformed into gender-based violence, causing immense psychological trauma.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 373: This case highlighted that victims of acid attacks cannot be compensated by grant of any compensation.
• Deepak Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559: This case summarized the circumstances under which bail granted by a lower court can be canceled.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508: This case distinguished between cancellation of bail due to misconduct and setting aside an unjustified order of bail.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118: This case stated that an appellate court may set aside an order granting bail if the court failed to consider relevant factors.
• Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303: This case discussed quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement, stating that heinous crimes should not be quashed even if settlement or compensation is offered.
• State of Jharkhand vs. Md. Sufiyan, SLP (Crl) No. 1960 of 2022: This case stated that the willingness of the accused to pay compensation cannot be a reason for grant of anticipatory bail.
• Sahab Alam alias Guddu vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1874: This case clarified that bail cannot be granted based on the capacity to pay compensation.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421:* The Court used this case to highlight that the normal rule of suspension of sentence for short-term imprisonment is not applicable to serious offenses.
• Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 638:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need for the appellate court to record reasons for suspending a sentence.
• Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 326:* This case was used to underscore the factors that should be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation and severity of the punishment.
• Khilari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 23:* The Court cited this case to show that it has previously interfered with orders suspending sentences for non-application of mind.
• State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175:* This case was used to emphasize that suspension of sentence in serious offenses should be considered with reference to relevant factors.
• Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 571:* The Court referred to this case to show the court’s concern regarding the increase in acid attacks and the need for stringent action against those supplying acid without proper authorization.
• Suresh Chandra Jana vs State of West Bengal and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 466:* This case was used to emphasize that acid attacks have transformed into gender-based violence, causing immense psychological trauma.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 373:* The Court cited this case to highlight that victims of acid attacks cannot be compensated by grant of any compensation.
• Deepak Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559:* This case was used to summarize the circumstances under which bail granted by a lower court can be canceled.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508:* The Court relied on this case to distinguish between cancellation of bail due to misconduct and setting aside an unjustified order of bail.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118:* This case was used to state that an appellate court may set aside an order granting bail if the court failed to consider relevant factors.
• Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303:* This case was used to discuss quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement, stating that heinous crimes should not be quashed even if settlement or compensation is offered.
• State of Jharkhand vs. Md. Sufiyan, SLP (Crl) No. 1960 of 2022:* The Court cited this case to state that the willingness of the accused to pay compensation cannot be a reason for grant of anticipatory bail.
• Sahab Alam alias Guddu vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1874:* The Court relied on this case to clarify that bail cannot be granted based on the capacity to pay compensation.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was unsustainable because it did not adequately consider the gravity of the offense, the permanent disfiguration caused to the victim, and the relevant parameters for suspending a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.PC. The Court emphasized that the offer of compensation and the likely delay in hearing the appeal are not valid grounds for suspending a sentence in such cases. The Court also noted that the High Court’s modification of its order to allow the convicts to deposit the money with the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not proper.

The Court stated, “We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is infected with non-application of mind and non-consideration of the relevant factors required for invocation of power under Section 389 in the light of the settled position of law.”

The Court further observed, “An acid attack may completely strip off the victim of her basic human right to live a decent human life owing to permanent disfiguration.”

The Court also noted, “In such circumstances, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled the bail granted to the convicts, and directed them to surrender before the trial court within four days. In case of their failure to surrender, they were to be re-arrested and committed to custody.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Severity of the Offense: The Court emphasized the heinous nature of acid attacks and their devastating impact on victims, including permanent disfiguration.
• Non-Application of Mind by the High Court: The Court found that the High Court had failed to properly consider the relevant factors for suspending a sentence, as required by Section 389 of the Cr.PC.
• Improper Reliance on Compensation: The Court held that the offer of compensation by the convicts was not a valid basis for suspending their sentence in such a serious crime.
• Need for Objective Assessment: The Court stressed that appellate courts must objectively assess the matter and record reasons for suspending a sentence, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Suspension of Sentence in Serious Offenses: The Supreme Court clarified that suspension of sentence in cases involving serious offenses like acid attacks should not be a routine matter. It requires careful consideration of the gravity of the offense and other relevant factors.
• Offer of Compensation: The Court explicitly stated that an offer of compensation by the accused cannot be a valid ground for suspending a sentence in heinous crimes.
• Objective Assessment: Appellate courts must objectively assess the matter and record reasons for suspending a sentence, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.
• Impact on Future Cases: This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving suspension of sentences in serious crimes, emphasizing the need for a more rigorous and objective approach.
• Protection of Victims: The judgment underscores the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of victims, especially in cases of heinous crimes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The impugned order of the High Court suspending the sentence of the private respondents and enlarging them on bail was set aside.
• The bail granted to the private respondents was cancelled.
• The private respondents were directed to surrender before the trial court for the purpose of their committal to judicial custody within a period of four days.
• In case of their failure to surrender, the private respondents were to be re-arrested and committed to custody.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving serious offenses like acid attacks, the suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be based on the offer of compensation or the likely delay in the hearing of the appeal. The appellate court must objectively assess the matter, considering the gravity of the offense and other relevant factors, and record reasons for its decision in writing.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the suspension of sentence in serious crimes is an exception and not the norm. It clarifies that the offer of compensation is not a valid ground for suspending sentences in heinous crimes. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a more rigorous application of the principles outlined in Section 389 of the Cr.PC, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.

Conclusion

In the case of Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Anr., the Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision to suspend the life imprisonment of convicts in an acid attack case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly applied its mind to the relevant factors for suspending a sentence, particularly in a case involving a heinous crime. The Court emphasized that the offer of compensation and the likely delay in hearing the appeal are not valid grounds for suspension of sentence. This judgment reinforces the need for a careful and objective assessment of relevant factors before suspending sentences, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and highlights the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of victims.

Disclaimer

This document is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. The information provided is based on the analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Anr. For any legal advice, please consult a qualified legal professional.