Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on suspension of sentence in murder case: Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 11

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J.

Can a High Court suspend the sentence of a convict in a murder case without adhering to the mandatory procedure laid down by law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial procedural question in a criminal appeal, highlighting the importance of following due process when suspending sentences, particularly in serious offenses. The bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy, set aside the High Court’s order for not complying with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Justice Kurian Joseph authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by the defacto complainant, Sunita Devi, against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court had suspended the sentence of Respondent No. 2, who had been convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the trial court. The complainant was aggrieved by the High Court’s order, which she argued was passed without following the mandatory procedure.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Patna, in I.A. No. 1630 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2013, suspended the sentence of Respondent No. 2, who was convicted of murder. Aggrieved by this order, the defacto complainant, Sunita Devi, approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before suspending the sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Court highlighted the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause against the release of a convict sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a period of ten years or more. The relevant provision is as follows:

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) deals with suspension of sentence pending the appeal.

The Court also cited the judgment in Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 177], which summarized the legal position regarding suspension of sentence. The key points from the judgment are:

• ✓ The appellate court must give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause against the release of a convict sentenced to death or life imprisonment or for a period of ten years or more.
• ✓ The State is required to file its objections in writing.
• ✓ If the Public Prosecutor does not file objections in writing, the court must specify this in its order.
• ✓ The court must consider all relevant factors, such as the gravity of the offense, nature of the crime, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, and impact on public confidence in the court, before passing an order for release.

Arguments

The following arguments were made before the Supreme Court:

• ✓ Appellant’s Argument (Sunita Devi): The appellant argued that the High Court had failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before suspending the sentence of Respondent No. 2, who was convicted of murder. The appellant contended that the High Court did not provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to present objections against the suspension of the sentence.
• ✓ State’s Argument: The State, represented by Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, supported the appellant’s argument and drew the Court’s attention to the mandatory requirements of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the judgment in Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 177], which clarified the procedure for suspending sentences in serious offenses.
• ✓ Respondent’s Argument: The arguments of the respondent were not specifically detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that they sought to justify the High Court’s order of suspension of sentence.

The innovativeness of the argument was that the State itself supported the appellant (complainant) in pointing out the error in the High Court’s order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court followed the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) while suspending the sentence of Respondent No. 2.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Court relied on Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to emphasize the mandatory procedure for suspending sentences, particularly the need to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to present objections.
• ✓ The Court followed the principles laid down in Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 177] which summarized the legal position regarding the suspension of sentence. The Court used this case to reinforce the mandatory nature of the procedure to be followed by the appellate court before suspending a sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse committed by the High Court. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the principles laid down in Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 177]. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that due process is followed, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The key points that weighed in the mind of the Court are:

• ✓ The mandatory requirement of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause against the release of a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or for a period of ten years or more.
• ✓ The High Court’s failure to adhere to this mandatory procedure.
• ✓ The need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that proper procedures are followed, especially in serious criminal cases.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The decision was solely based on the procedural lapse of the High Court in not following Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court’s reasoning was straightforward and focused on ensuring adherence to the established legal procedures.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order suspending the sentence of Respondent No. 2. The Court held that the High Court had failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which requires the court to give an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to show cause against the release of a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or for a period of ten years or more. The Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for suspension of sentence, directing the High Court to follow the proper procedure. The Court also granted interim bail to Respondent No. 2 for a period of three months, within which time the High Court was requested to dispose of the application.

The Supreme Court stated, “Admittedly, such procedure has not been followed in this case. Therefore, the order is set aside.”

The Supreme Court also observed, “We also make it clear that since we have not referred to the other contentions raised by the appellant herein, it will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions and the High Court shall advert to the same and pass a reasoned order.”

Further, the Supreme Court held, “Having regard to the submissions made before us, we are of the view that the second respondent be treated on an interim bail for a further period of three months, within which time, we request the High Court, in any case, to dispose of the application filed by the second respondent for suspension of sentence afresh as per this Judgment.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must follow the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) when considering the suspension of sentences, especially in cases involving serious offenses.
• ✓ The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to show cause against the release of a convict sentenced to life imprisonment or for a period of ten years or more.
• ✓ Failure to follow this procedure can lead to the setting aside of the High Court’s order by the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of due process and adherence to legal procedures in the criminal justice system.

Directions

The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for suspension of sentence. The High Court was directed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and provide an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to present objections. The Court also granted interim bail to Respondent No. 2 for a period of three months, within which time the High Court was requested to dispose of the application.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) when considering the suspension of sentences, especially in cases involving serious offenses. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. highlights the importance of adhering to the mandatory procedures under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) when suspending sentences. The Court set aside the High Court’s order for failing to follow the required procedure and emphasized that due process must be followed, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The judgment underscores the need for judicial discipline and adherence to legal procedures to maintain public confidence in the justice system.