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.
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.
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. 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.
A 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. “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. Such situations, they said, demanded a careful assessment rather than a blanket approach either in favour of detention or release.
