NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reiterated that once an accused stands convicted, he can no longer claim presumption of innocence and courts must examine evidence prima facie before suspending sentence in heinous cases.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that pendency of appeal and bleak possibility of early hearing cannot by itself lead to suspension.
"The pendency and the possibility of the appeal being taken up in the near future cannot be a reason to order suspension of sentence," the bench said while setting aside the Rajasthan HC's order.
The HC had suspended sentence of murder convict pending appeal citing huge pendency of criminal appeals.
The Supreme Court strongly deprecated this and said allowing release without considering prima facie evidence and actual incarceration exposes fault lines.
"Whatever be the reason for the pendency of cases, the Courts cannot be complacent and release criminals convicted for heinous offences, especially when they have not undergone sentence for any considerable period, since it puts to peril the life of the civil society; exposing the fault lines of the system," the Court said.
The case relates to murder committed by the prime accused, A1, out of rivalry in local Sarpanch election. He was found to be kingpin. The trial court convicted him for murder. HC suspended his jail sentence.
The father of the deceased approached the Supreme Court challenging the suspension granted to the main convict and co-accused.
The apex court found that thsle HC order was passed essentially because many appeals were pending and disposal in near future was impossible.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said that the HC erred in ignoring evidence that led to conviction. It emphasized courts must be sensitive to victims' family too.
"While being concerned with the liberty of an individual, especially when the accused stands convicted by a Court of law, no longer being enabled the presumption of innocence, like in this case," it said courts must consider sentiments of victims' family.
The bench said long pendency of appeals is reality which can be crucial when convict has suffered incarceration for some time, but that alone cannot be ground to grant bail when offence is heinous and convict has undergone meagre incarceration.
"What we indicate is the circumspection with which grant of bail has to be made with respect to persons convicted in heinous crimes. This has to be done on a prima facie examination of the evidence led, which if found to be compelling, then with due weightage given to the actual incarceration suffered by the accused juxtaposed with the reality of the long pendency," the Court said.
It clarified suspension of sentence post-conviction cannot be knee-jerk reaction to pendency.
