LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a convict should be granted bail during the pendency of appeal, especially when the maximum sentence awarded is of three years. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, specifically cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Case Name: Jeetu Khatik vs. State of Chhattisgarh. [Judgment Date]: April 11, 2022.
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: April 11, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 382
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Can a person convicted of a crime, with a relatively short sentence, be granted bail while their appeal is pending? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure justice is served. The Court considered whether the High Court was correct in denying bail to an appellant convicted under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, where the maximum sentence was three years and the appeal was likely to take time. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident where the appellant, Jeetu Khatik, was accused of kidnapping a 9-year-old girl. The prosecution alleged that he used criminal force with the intention of outraging her modesty and with sexual intent, held her hand to take her away from the road. The victim managed to free herself and ran away while shouting. The Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment under Section 363, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, along with an application for suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Appellant allegedly kidnapped a 9-year-old girl. |
| N/A | Appellant was accused of using criminal force with the intention of outraging her modesty and with sexual intent. |
| 24.09.2021 | Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, convicted the appellant. |
| 24.09.2021 | Appellant was sentenced under Section 363 and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. |
| N/A | Appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. |
| N/A | Appellant filed an application for suspension of sentence. |
| 09.11.2021 | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur declined the prayer for suspension of sentence. |
| 11.04.2022 | Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded sentences under Section 363, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, along with an application for suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court declined the prayer for suspension of sentence, referring to the deposition of the prosecutrix and its corroboration with medical evidence. The High Court did not comment on the merits of the case and ordered the appeal to be listed for hearing in due course. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The judgment discusses the following legal provisions:
- Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with the punishment for kidnapping. It states, “Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. It states, “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
- Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: This section deals with punishment for sexual assault. It states, “Whoever commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with suspension of sentence pending the appeal. It states, “(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The Trial Court had overlooked major contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses.
- The appellant was on bail during the trial and did not misuse his liberty.
- The disposal of the appeal was likely to take some time, and therefore, the appellant should be released on bail.
- The maximum sentence awarded was three years, and the appellant had already served two months of imprisonment.
- If further execution of sentence is denied, the appellant is likely to serve out a substantial part of the sentence, and if the Appellate Court reverses the conviction, the deprivation of liberty would be irreparable.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- Special reasons were required for the grant of suspension of execution of sentence.
- Cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645, arguing that there were no special and compelling reasons to grant bail.
- In post-conviction bail, the question of presumption of innocence does not arise.
- The court should not reassess and/or re-analyse the same evidence and take a different view.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Suspension of Sentence |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in denying the suspension of sentence, considering the relatively short sentence and the likely delay in hearing the appeal.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in denying the suspension of sentence. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct. | The maximum sentence was three years, the appeal was likely to take time, and the deprivation of liberty would be irreparable if the conviction was reversed. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645 | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished the case, stating that the observations in Preet Pal Singh were made in the context of a case where the accused was convicted of an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Trial Court overlooked contradictions in witness statements. | Appellant | Not explicitly addressed, but impliedly accepted as a reason for granting bail. |
| Appellant did not misuse bail during the trial. | Appellant | Accepted as a factor in favor of granting bail. |
| Appeal disposal would take time. | Appellant | Accepted as a compelling reason for suspension of sentence. |
| Maximum sentence was 3 years, appellant served 2 months. | Appellant | Accepted as a significant factor in granting bail. |
| Deprivation of liberty would be irreparable if conviction is reversed. | Appellant | Accepted as a key reason for suspending the sentence. |
| Special reasons required for suspension of sentence. | Respondent | Rejected, the court found that the short sentence and likely delay in appeal were compelling reasons. |
| Relied on Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645. | Respondent | Distinguished, as the facts were different. |
| No presumption of innocence post-conviction. | Respondent | Acknowledged, but the court focused on the practical implications of a short sentence and delay in appeal. |
| Court should not reassess evidence. | Respondent | Agreed, but the court did not reassess evidence, rather focused on the sentence and delay. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645, stating that the observations in that case were made in relation to a case where the accused was convicted of an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment. The court held that the observations in Preet Pal Singh have to be read with reference to the factual background and context.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the practical implications of denying bail in a case where the maximum sentence was three years and the appeal was likely to take a considerable amount of time. The Court emphasized that if the appellant served out the sentence and was later acquitted, the deprivation of liberty would be irreparable. The court also noted that the High Court did not find the appeal worth assigning a priority for hearing, which further contributed to the likelihood of a delay. The Court also considered that the appellant had not misused his liberty during the trial and had no prior criminal record.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Short Sentence (3 years) | 30% |
| Likely Delay in Appeal | 35% |
| Irreparable Deprivation of Liberty | 25% |
| No Misuse of Liberty During Trial | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Issue: Should the appellant be granted bail during the pendency of appeal?
Consideration 1: Maximum sentence awarded is 3 years.
Consideration 2: Appeal is likely to take time for disposal.
Consideration 3: If appellant serves sentence and is later acquitted, deprivation of liberty is irreparable.
Consideration 4: Appellant did not misuse liberty during trial.
Decision: Execution of sentence is suspended, and the appellant is granted bail.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, particularly the short sentence and the likely delay in the appeal process. The Court emphasized that the observations in Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645, were made in a different context and did not apply to the present case. The Court also considered the principle that deprivation of liberty should be minimized, especially when there is a possibility of the conviction being reversed on appeal.
The Court considered the submissions made by the respondent regarding the need for special reasons for grant of suspension of sentence. However, the Court found that the circumstances of the case, specifically the short sentence and the potential delay in hearing the appeal, were compelling reasons for granting bail. The Court also took into account that the appellant had not misused his liberty during the trial. The court reasoned that if the appeal remains pending and the appellant serves out the sentence, and there is a possibility of acquittal or modification of the conviction/sentence, the injury suffered by him would be irreparable.
The Supreme Court stated that, “In our view, these aspects, in the given set of facts and circumstances of the present case, are themselves of the compelling reasons for suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of appeal.” The court further noted that, “There does not appear any other adverse reason to deny the relief to the appellant, like any criminal antecedents before the incident in question or any blame in the jail conduct.” The Court also stated that, “if the appeal is to be heard only on its turn, the likely scenario is that it would not be taken up for hearing immediately by the High Court.”
Key Takeaways
- In cases where the maximum sentence is relatively short, and the appeal is likely to take time, the courts may grant bail to prevent irreparable harm to the appellant.
- The observations made in previous judgments on suspension of sentence should be read in the context of the specific facts of those cases.
- The courts should consider the practical implications of denying bail, especially when there is a possibility of the conviction being reversed on appeal.
Directions
The Supreme Court ordered the suspension of execution of the remaining part of the sentence awarded to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving short sentences, where the appeal is likely to take time, the court may grant bail to prevent irreparable harm. This judgment clarifies that the principles laid down in Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (2020) 8 SCC 645, regarding post-conviction bail, should be applied in the context of the specific facts of each case. The court has emphasized the need to consider the practical implications of denying bail, especially when there is a possibility of the conviction being reversed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the suspension of the remaining part of the sentence awarded to the appellant. The Court emphasized that in cases with short sentences and likely delays in appeal, bail may be granted to prevent irreparable harm. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing the principles of justice with the practical realities of the judicial process.