Section 389 CrPC: Conviction Cannot Be Suspended Automatically With Sentence, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that suspension of a conviction is a distinct and exceptional relief that cannot automatically follow from suspension of a sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC (now Section 430 of the BNSS). It said an appellate court can suspend a conviction only in rare cases where the appellant shows specific irreparable consequences or prejudice if the conviction continues to operate.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the observations while partly allowing an appeal filed by Lalita Rani Mondal Saha against a December 22, 2025 order of the Calcutta High Court. The high court had suspended the sentences of the accused, granted them bail and also stayed the operation of their convictions during the pendency of their criminal appeal.

What is the difference between suspension of sentence and conviction?

The Supreme Court explained that suspension of sentence merely keeps the punishment in abeyance during the pendency of an appeal. It does not affect the finding of guilt, which continues to operate.

Suspension of conviction, on the other hand, makes the conviction non-operative during the period of the stay and may prevent legal disabilities or other consequences flowing from it. However, it does not erase the conviction.

"A stay of conviction renders the conviction non-operative from the date of the stay... It does not erase the conviction or render it non-existent," the Bench said, adding that suspension of conviction requires separate consideration and reasons and "cannot follow as an automatic or incidental consequence of the suspension of sentence".

Court said the power to suspend a conviction is available to an appellate court under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which corresponds to Section 389 of the CrPC.

Referring to its earlier judgment in Rama Narang v Ramesh Narang (1995), the Bench noted that the expression "order appealed against" in the provision is wide enough to include an order of conviction. However, the existence of such power does not mean that suspension of conviction can be granted routinely.

In Ravikant S Patil v Sarvabhouma S Bagali (2007), the Supreme Court had held that staying a conviction is an exception to be exercised only in rare cases depending on the special facts. The principle was reiterated in Lok Prahari v Election Commission of India (2018), where the Court held that a person seeking suspension of conviction must specifically bring to the appellate court's notice the consequences that would follow if the conviction remained in operation.

Why did the Supreme Court set aside the stay on conviction?

The case arose from the conviction of the private respondents for offences under Section 143 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 189(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment.

According to the prosecution, on March 25, 2016, the accused persons took the deceased, Bhabatosh Saha alias Babla, and Purna Chandra Saha near the house of one Amar Das following a dispute relating to payment under an agreement for sale. An altercation followed, during which the accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with sharp-edged weapons. He was later taken to Chanchal Sadar Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

The appellant, the deceased's wife and the informant, challenged the high court's decision to stay the conviction.

The Supreme Court found that there had been no specific prayer before the high court seeking suspension of conviction. Nor had the respondents pleaded any particular disqualification, irreversible consequence or exceptional prejudice that would result from allowing the conviction to remain operative.

The high court had relied on alleged improvements in the prosecution evidence, the existence of an arguable case and the fact that the respondents had remained on bail during the trial without misusing their liberty.

The Supreme Court said these considerations could be relevant to suspension of sentence and grant of bail, but did not constitute exceptional circumstances for suspending the conviction.

"The existence of an arguable case in appeal cannot, by itself, render the conviction inoperative," the Bench said. If that were enough, suspension of conviction would become routine in every appeal raising a question for consideration.

Court also noted that the high court had not recorded separate reasons for suspending the conviction.

"The gravity of the offence and the nature of the findings recorded by the trial court could not have been overlooked while granting a relief which went beyond suspension of sentence," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the high court's order insofar as it stayed the operation of the conviction. However, it left intact the suspension of sentence and the direction releasing the respondents on bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the high court.

Case Title: Lalita Rani Mondal Saha Vs State of West Bengal & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: July 22, 2026