Brief Facts
- The Appellant suffered a sulfuric acid attack, leading to 30-40% burns and permanent disfigurement of her face, chest, and hands.
- The accused persons were convicted u/s 307 and 326A r/w 149, IPC, 1860.
- The Trial Court sentenced the accused to Life Imprisonment.
- The High Court suspended sentence of the convicted persons, private respondents and consequentially enlarged their bail.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in its judgment by granting suspension of sentence and the subsequent bail based on monetary compensation to victim and the delays in appeal?
- Whether Sec. 389, CrPC was correctly applied by considering the gravity of the offense and sentencing principles?
- Factors governing the exercise of powers of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.
- The role of proportionality in sentencing and whether heinous crimes like acid attacks merit leniency under bail provisions.
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the Appeal and cancelled the suspension of sentence directing the Accused Respondents to forthwith surrender before the Trial Court.
- One of the principles of sentencing in criminal law is proportionality. If the appropriate punishment is not awarded or if, after conviction for a heinous crime, the court directs the suspension of the sentence without valid reasons, the very purpose for which the criminal justice system exists will fail. The Apex Court criticized the concept of bail granted in lieu of compensation given by the accused and held that the willingness of the accused to pay compensation cannot be a reason for the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court highly criticised the impugned judgment, stating that the same was infected with non-application of mind and non-consideration of the relevant factors.
- It also held that the impugned order passed by the High Court suggests that it unreasonably failed to consider the parameters laid down for the grant of bail or suspension of sentence.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, 27