Don’t cover up court failures by freeing convicts, SC tells courts

The Supreme Court has cautioned courts against suspending the sentences of people convicted of heinous offences merely because their appeals are unlikely to be heard in the near future, holding that the judiciary’s inability to decide cases quickly cannot become a reason to set convicted criminals free because such an approach puts the “life of civil society at peril” and exposes the “fault lines” of the judicial system.India NewsA bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said that courts must exercise greater circumspection while considering bail pleas after conviction, balancing the liberty of an individual against the actual period of incarceration and the sentiments of the victim’s family.“The courts should be sensitive to the sentiments of the 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,” held the bench in a recent order.The court added that the burden of judicial pendency was ultimately borne more by citizens than by courts, and that the judiciary could not cover up its institutional shortcomings by releasing those convicted of grave crimes.“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, which we definitely cannot cover up but should always endeavour to overcome,” it emphasised.In laying down the considerations that must guide courts in such matters, the bench said that the decision to suspend a sentence cannot be a “knee-jerk reaction” to the pendency of appeals. Courts must first undertake a prima facie examination of the evidence, and where that evidence is compelling, weigh the period of incarceration already undergone against the reality of delays in the appellate process, it added.The bench also acknowledged that there were cases in which trials themselves had taken a decade, followed by another decade of pending appeals, with the accused remaining in custody throughout. Such situations, they said, demanded a careful assessment rather than a blanket approach either in favour of detention or release.The observations came while setting aside the suspension of sentence granted to a man convicted of masterminding the 2017 murder of a candidate contesting a sarpanch election in Rajasthan, allegedly over political rivalry.The case involved the 2017 murder case of former sarpanch Sardar Rao due to political rivalry. Jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi was also named as an accused in the case for orchestrating the killing from inside the prison but he was acquitted along with another co-accused, while Ram was sentenced to life imprisonment and six others received 10-year jail terms.The bench was particularly critical of the Rajasthan high court’s decision in August to suspend the sentence of Hardeva Ram, holding that the pendency of criminal appeals and the unlikelihood of an early hearing could not, by themselves, justify his release when the evidence against him was prima facie compelling.The case arose from a political rivalry between Ram, a government schoolteacher, and the deceased, who was contesting a by-election for the sarpanch post after Ram’s son vacated the position upon securing government employment. According to the prosecution, Ram orchestrated the murder while keeping himself away from the scene, with other accused allegedly arranging the assailants and facilitating their escape.Ram was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The other accused were convicted of criminal conspiracy and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The high court suspended their sentences primarily because of the large number of criminal appeals pending before it and the absence of any likelihood of an early hearing.“Looking to the docket of this Court, it cannot be denied that hearing of appeal is likely to take time. In the aforesaid factual and legal context, we deem it just and proper to allow the suspension of sentence applications,” a division bench of the high court had held.Challenging the relief, the father of the deceased approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court had overlooked material evidence pointing to Prasad’s role in the conspiracy.On examining the trial court judgment, the Supreme Court found that witnesses had spoken of the political rivalry and Ram’s threats against the deceased. Some witnesses had specifically testified that Ram openly threatened, in the presence of the sub-divisional magistrate who was the returning officer, that the candidate would not remain alive until the election.The bench also noted that an assistant commissioner had testified that Ram was present at a police station on the day of the murder without any notice or apparent reason. The trial court had drawn an inference that this was a deliberate attempt to distance himself from the crime and create an alibi.Finding that the high court had erred in suspending his sentence, the Supreme Court directed Ram to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which steps would be taken to apprehend him.Highlighting the human cost of routinely granting relief on grounds of judicial delay, the bench pointed to the predicament of the deceased’s father. “The father, day-in and day-out, has to contend with, watching the person convicted of the murder of his son, walking free while the Judges grapple with their pendency in Courts,” it said.The bench, however, distinguished the case of the other three convicts sentenced to ten years in jail, noting that the prosecution’s allegations that they had changed the number plate of the vehicle used by the assailants, arranged accommodation for them and procured SIM cards had not been adequately established. Several witnesses had turned hostile, while those who testified about the hotel bookings had failed to identify the actual perpetrators, noted the bench, while affirming suspension of their sentence.