Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Cancels Bail: Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2 May 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2023

Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1331-1332 of 2023

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a High Court suspend a life sentence and grant bail to convicted murderers based on a preliminary assessment of evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the need for a higher threshold for granting bail post-conviction, especially in serious offenses like murder. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, highlighting that the suspension of sentence should not be a routine matter. This judgment clarifies the principles governing the suspension of sentences under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Manish Kumar, a Block Pramukh, in Jandaha, Bihar. On 13 August 2018, Manish Kumar was shot dead at the Block office. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by his brother, Omprakash Sahni, on 14 August 2018, naming Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar, and Ram Babu Sahni as the assailants. The prosecution alleged that Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Abhay Kumar fired upon Manish Kumar at the exhortation of Ram Babu Sahni due to political rivalry. The Trial Court convicted Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar, and Ram Babu Sahni for murder, while acquitting the other co-accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The three convicts, Jai Shankar Chaudhary, Abhay Kumar, and Ram Babu Sahni, appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna against their conviction and sentence. 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 overwriting of the date and a delay in its filing, and also questioned the informant’s (PW-7) credibility. The High Court observed that there was no cogent explanation for the informant to have filed his written statement on the next day at 01:00 pm, implicating these appellants as the main assailants. The original first informant, Omprakash Sahni, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily 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. The provision states:

“389. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.—(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.”

The Court emphasized that while an appellate court has the power to suspend a sentence, it must do so for reasons recorded in writing, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The Court highlighted that the suspension of sentence should not be a routine matter, particularly when the accused has been convicted of a grave offense.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Omprakash Sahni):

• The High Court erred in suspending the sentence and granting bail to the convicts, as the presumption of innocence no longer exists after conviction.
• The High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence, such as the alleged overwriting in the FIR and the delay in lodging it, at this stage.
• The case is based on strong ocular evidence, and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused.

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

• The prosecution’s case is doubtful and politically motivated, with the true origin of the occurrence suppressed.
• There were discrepancies in the FIR, including overwriting of the date and a delay in its filing, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
• The informant’s (PW-7) testimony was inconsistent, as he claimed to have taken the deceased to the hospital but later admitted he did not go to the Sadar hospital.
• The appellants were produced via video conference, and there was no evidence of witness identification during the trial.
• The High Court’s order was a discretionary one under Section 389 of the CrPC, and the Supreme Court should be slow to interfere.
• The appeals would take a long time to be heard, and the convicts should not be kept in jail until then, especially since there is a fair chance of their acquittal.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondents was that they highlighted the discrepancies in the FIR, the informant’s inconsistent testimony, and the lack of witness identification during the trial to argue that the prosecution’s case was doubtful and politically motivated.

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

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions while deciding the matter:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 389 of the CrPC: The Court analyzed this provision to emphasize that suspension of sentence is not a routine matter and requires specific reasons to be recorded.
• Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight that bail decisions depend on the specific facts of each case and there is no absolute rule.
• Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to stress the importance of considering criminal history and societal concerns.
• Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to note that the approach for suspending life sentences is different from other sentences.
• Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION]: The Court used this case to reiterate that the presumption of innocence is lost after conviction and that suspension should be exceptional.
• Atul Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to give the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to object to bail.
• Kishori Lal v. Rupa and Others [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight that the absence of misuse of liberty during trial is not a sufficient ground for suspension of sentence.
• Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others [CITATION] and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another [CITATION]: The Court relied on these cases to emphasize that suspension of sentence in murder cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
• Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] and Gomti v. Thakurdas and Others [CITATION]: The Court used these cases to reiterate that suspension of sentence in murder cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the following key points:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence.
• The presumption of innocence is erased upon conviction, and post-conviction bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• The High Court should have considered the gravity of the offense and the societal impact of releasing convicted murderers on bail.
• The High Court’s reasoning based on minor discrepancies in the FIR and the informant’s testimony was not sufficient to justify the suspension of sentence.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its boundaries by re-evaluating evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is lost upon conviction and that the suspension of sentence should not be a routine matter, especially in serious offenses like murder. The Court’s decision was based on a careful consideration of the legal principles and precedents, as well as the specific facts of the case. The Court also noted that the High Court’s reasoning, based on minor discrepancies in the FIR and the informant’s testimony, was not sufficient to justify the suspension of sentence.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The principle underlying the theory of criminal jurisprudence in our country is that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of the competent jurisdiction. Once the accused is held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased.”
• “The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.”
• “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and their release on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Post-conviction bail is not a routine matter, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• The presumption of innocence is erased upon conviction.
• Appellate courts should not re-evaluate evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence.
• The gravity of the offense and the societal impact must be considered when granting bail post-conviction.

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 ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not re-evaluate evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence and that post-conviction bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder. This judgment reinforces the principle that the presumption of innocence is lost upon conviction. It also clarifies the correct approach for appellate courts when considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary reaffirms the importance of a stringent approach to post-conviction bail, particularly in cases of serious offenses like murder. The Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the presumption of innocence is lost upon conviction and that appellate courts must not re-evaluate evidence at the stage of considering the suspension of sentence. By setting aside the High Court’s order and directing the convicts to surrender, the Supreme Court has upheld the integrity of the criminal justice system and emphasized the need to consider the gravity of the offense and its societal impact when deciding on matters of bail.