Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail. 

"If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, and if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih pointed out.

Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority, the bench said.

The court also noted, "In all the major High Courts in our country, there is a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail".

The court was dealing with an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh government against the high court's decision to convert conviction of the respondents from Section 302 to the second part of Section 304 IPC.

The high court noted that the incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent, Shyamlal, was nearly 80 years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of 70. The respondents were let off by the high court with the sentence already undergone. A fine of Rs 16,000 each was imposed on the respondents out of which, a sum of Rs 1,00,000 was ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased and a compensation of Rs.10,000 each to PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and PW-2 (Ramadhar).  

The incident took place on November 1, 1989, in which the respondents, with a common intention and object, got together and assaulted deceased Laxman and other prosecution witnesses because they had cut the tail of a buffalo belonging to them.

The state counsel said that even assuming that the offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was made out, the respondents were let off with undergone sentence of only 76 days. He submitted that conversion of the offence punishable under Section 302 into an offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was not justified. Only because there was a time gap of 15 days from the date of assault to the date of death of the deceased, it could not be said that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was not proved.

He said the attack by the respondents was so brutal that the cumulative number of injuries inflicted by them on the eyewitnesses and the deceased was more than 35, which were grievous in nature.

The counsel submitted that it is well settled that one of the prime objectives of the criminal law is to impose adequate, just and proportionate punishment commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. In any event, punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the court.

The respondents' counsel referred to the findings recorded by the high court that the injuries inflicted by the respondents on the deceased were simple in nature, and there was no intention to commit murder. She pointed out that PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) had submitted a report stating that the deceased-Laxman had suffered simple injuries. The post-mortem recorded that the deceased-Laxman died on account of asphyxia and that the cause of death was not discernible. Moreover, there was no evidence of internal damage to any of the organs. No chemical or poison was detected in the viscera sent for chemical examination.

After going through the evidence, the bench noted neither the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report nor the evidence of the doctor proved that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his death. Moreover, the death occurred 15 days after the incident.

"We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of Laxman. Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased," the bench said.

That is why it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the high court directing that the respondents-accused should be let off for the offence under Section 304, read with Section 149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone, the bench added. 

The court pointed out that when the high court decided the appeal in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old. When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost thirty-six years old, the bench said.

The court again noted when the judgment of the high court was delivered, at least five accused were above 70 years of age, and one of them was of the age of about 80 years. A substantial amount of Rs 16,000 each had been imposed by the high court by way of fine. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the judgment of the high court, the court held.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Shyamlal & Ors