Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Murder Case: Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 2, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 478
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Can a High Court suspend a life sentence and grant bail to convicts based on a preliminary assessment of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, setting aside a High Court order that had granted bail to individuals convicted of murder. This case highlights the stringent criteria for suspending sentences in serious criminal cases and underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the justice system. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Manish Kumar, who was the Block Pramukh of Jandaha. On August 13, 2018, Manish Kumar was shot dead at the Block office. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by his brother, Omprakash Sahni, the appellant in this case, on August 14, 2018. According to the FIR, Manish Kumar was attacked by Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Abhay Kumar, who were allegedly provoked by Ram Babu Sahni. The Trial Court convicted Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar, and Ram Babu Sahni for murder. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. The convicts then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The three convicts appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court, while hearing their appeals, suspended their life sentences and granted them bail. The High Court noted discrepancies in the FIR, such as the delay in its filing and overwriting on the date, and questioned the veracity of the prosecution’s case. The High Court also highlighted that the informant’s testimony contradicted the FIR, as he claimed not to have accompanied the deceased to the Sadar hospital, as stated in the FIR. The High Court also noted that there was no evidence that the prosecution witnesses identified the accused during the trial. Aggrieved by this order, the original first informant, Omprakash Sahni, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail. Section 389(1) of the CrPC states:

“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.”

The Court also highlighted the proviso to Section 389(1), which requires the Appellate Court to give the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to show cause in writing against such release, especially in cases where the convicted person is sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Omprakash Sahni):

• The High Court erred in suspending the life sentence and granting bail by re-appreciating the evidence, which is not permissible under Section 389 of the CrPC.
• The presumption of innocence no longer exists after a conviction, and the High Court should be cautious in granting bail.
• The entire case of the prosecution is based on ocular evidence, which has been believed and accepted by the Trial Court.

Respondents’ Arguments (Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar, and Ram Babu Sahni):

• The prosecution’s case is highly doubtful and politically motivated, with a suppression of the true origin of the occurrence.
• There were significant discrepancies in the FIR, including overwriting on the date and a delay in its filing.
• The informant’s testimony was inconsistent, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version.
• The High Court’s order was a discretionary one, and the Supreme Court should be slow to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• The convicts have a fair chance of acquittal and should not be kept in jail for a prolonged period.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court committed an error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and releasing them on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI [(2007) 1 SCC 70]*, Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another [(2012) 9 SCC 446]*, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat [(1999) 4 SCC 421]*, Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2008) 5 SCC 230]*, Atul Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2014) 9 SCC 177]*, Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others [(2004) 7 SCC 638]*, Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others [(2002) 9 SCC 364]*, and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another [(2002) 9 SCC 366]*, to emphasize that suspension of sentence in cases involving serious offenses like murder should not be granted routinely. The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is erased upon conviction, and appellate courts should be cautious in granting bail. The Court also emphasized that the societal concern should be given priority over individual liberty in such cases. The Court found that the High Court had not followed these principles and had re-appreciated the evidence, which is not permissible under Section 389 of the CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s improper application of Section 389 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that once a person is convicted, the presumption of innocence is erased, and the appellate court should be cautious in suspending the sentence, particularly in serious offenses like murder. The Court noted that the High Court had re-appreciated the evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of considering suspension of sentence. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining public trust in the justice system and the need to prioritize societal concerns over individual liberty in cases involving heinous crimes. The Court observed that the High Court had not considered the seriousness of the offense and had focused on aspects like delay in filing the FIR and political rivalry, which are to be considered during the final hearing of the appeal.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The ratio of Fact to Law is 30:70. This indicates that the Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than by the specific factual aspects of the case (30%). The court primarily focused on the correct interpretation and application of Section 389 of the CrPC and the principles governing suspension of sentence, rather than the factual details of the crime itself.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The presumption of innocence is erased once an accused is convicted.
• Appellate Courts should be cautious in suspending sentences, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.
• Societal concerns and public trust in the justice system should be prioritized over individual liberty in cases involving heinous crimes.
• The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to show cause against the release of a convict in cases involving serious offenses.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the convicts to surrender before the Trial Court within three days from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated the established legal position that the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to a convict, especially in serious offenses like murder, should not be a routine matter. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is erased upon conviction, and appellate courts must exercise caution. The judgment reinforces the principle that societal concerns and public trust in the justice system should be given priority over individual liberty in cases involving heinous crimes. The Court also clarified that the power under Section 389 of the CrPC should not be used to re-appreciate evidence, which is the function of the appellate court at the final hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the original first informant, Omprakash Sahni, and set aside the High Court’s order that had suspended the life sentences of the convicts and granted them bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in re-appreciating the evidence and not considering the seriousness of the offense. The Court directed the convicts to surrender before the Trial Court within three days, underscoring the stringent approach that should be followed in cases involving serious offenses like murder.