Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is not automatic like suspension of sentence of a fixed term and even if, a sentence is for a fixed term but there are exceptional circumstances emerging from the record of the case, the court may decline to suspend the sentence in exercise of its powers under Section 389 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declined a plea by Mohammad Arif and another person, two convicts in a double murder case against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting their plea for suspension of sentence during the pendency of their appeals even after they had undergone 10 years of jail term out of life imprisonment imposed on them.

The petitioners along with five others were put to trial for the offence of murder etc. At the end of the trial, all seven stood convicted by the trial court. They filed their respective criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court.

Out of seven, four had been ordered to be released on bail pending their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment passed by the trial court.

Two approached the Supreme Court but were declined bail pending their criminal appeals.

The High Court reasoned that the two petitioners herein were armed with firearms and as per the case of the prosecution they fired shots on the two deceased, one died on the spot and another succumbed to injuries two days after.

"We take notice of the fact that the criminal appeals filed by the petitioners herein is of the year 2022. The appeal will not be taken up for hearing in the near future. We are also conscious of the fact that both the petitioners herein have undergone almost 10 years of imprisonment. However, we should not overlook the fact that the sentence is not for a fixed term but the same is of life imprisonment," the bench said.

The court emphasised suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is not automatic like suspension of sentence of a fixed term.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the top court, in two of its decisions—Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and Sonadhar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on September 15, 2022—had held that all convicts who had completed 10 years of their sentence, whose appeals were not proximate to being heard, and for whom there were no extenuating circumstances, should be enlarged on bail.

A counsel, appearing for the State, vehemently opposed these petitions. She submitted that just because the petitioners had undergone 10 years of sentence by itself would not entitle them to seek suspension of sentence of life imprisonment pending their criminal appeal before the High Court.

She laid much emphasis on the fact that the case was of double murder.

"Having regard to the matter, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioners," the bench said.

At the same time, the court noted that the criminal appeal before the High Court was of the year 2022 and it was not likely to be taken up in near future.

Considering the facts that the other co-convicts were already on bail and also that the petitioners herein had undergone almost 10 years of sentence, the bench said, "We make a fervent request to the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to assign the criminal appeal of 2022 and allied appeals of the other co-convicts to be placed before the appropriate bench with a request that the same may be taken up for hearing at the earliest and as far as possible dispose of them within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order."

The court clarified that it had otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The criminal appeals should be decided on their own merits, in accordance with law, it directed.

Court granted liberty to the petitioners to come back if by chance their appeals were not taken up for hearing within next six months. The petitioners, who were ordered to be released on interim bail in 2024, were directed to surrender within a period of eight days.

Case Title: Mohammad Arif Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh