Source:  Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan has delineated stringent criteria for suspending life sentences, ruling that such relief is contingent upon prima facie evidence of an unsustainable conviction and a high probability of a successful appeal.  

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor v. The State of Gujarat . 
• This judicial pronouncement significantly narrows the scope for suspension of life sentences, potentially altering the landscape of post-conviction relief in Indian criminal jurisprudence.  

What was the Background of Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor v. The State of Gujarat? 

• The petitioner (Bhupatji Sartajji Jabraji Thakor) and a co-accused were tried in Sessions Court for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
•  During the trial, the petitioner was out on bail. 
• The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting the co-accused. 
• The conviction was based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. 
• The petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in the High Court challenging the trial court's conviction. 
• The appeal was admitted by the High Court. 
• The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous criminal application under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC), seeking suspension of the life sentence. 
• The High Court rejected the application to suspend the life sentence. 
• The petitioner has now approached the Supreme Court with the present petition. 
•  The petitioner's counsel has pointed out mitigating circumstances: 
• The petitioner needs to support his widowed daughter-in-law and her three minor children. 
• The family is in a difficult financial situation. 
• The appeal from 2023 is likely to take considerable time before it's heard. 
• The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the State of Gujarat to respond to the plea for bail based on these mitigating circumstances. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court has delineated distinct criteria for suspension of fixed-term sentences versus life imprisonment, mandating a more stringent test for the latter. 
• For life sentences, the Court held that suspension is warranted only if there exists prima facie evidence of the conviction's legal unsustainability, without necessitating a re-appreciation of evidence. 
• The Bench elucidated that while appellate courts may liberally exercise discretion in suspending fixed-term sentences, life imprisonment suspension requires clear indication of the conviction's potential reversal on appeal. 
• Applying this legal test to the case at bar, the Court upheld the High Court's denial of suspension, finding no palpable grounds to conclude the conviction was unsustainable or that the appellant had a substantial likelihood of a successful appeal. 
• This ruling establishes a higher threshold for suspension of life sentences, emphasizing the need for apparent legal infirmities in the conviction rather than mere re-examination of evidence. 

What is Life Imprisonment? 

• Section 4(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) defines life imprisonment.  
• Section 6 of BNS states that in calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years unless otherwise provided. 
• Earlier Section 55 of the IPC states that in every case in which a sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. 
  • The state government can grant remission or commute the sentence under Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC, subject to certain conditions and limitations. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it? 

• Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS): 
  • Section 430 of BNSS deals with the Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail. 
  • Earlier it was dealt with Section 389 of CrPC. 
  • Sub section(1) of Section  states that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond or bail bond:  
    • Proviso (1) provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on his own bond or bail bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, shall give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor for showing cause in writing against such release: 
    • Proviso (2) provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail.  
  • Sub section (2) states that the power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto. 
  • Sub section (3) state that where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, the Court shall, — 
    • where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years; or  
    • where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail, order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the Appellate Court under sub-section (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.  
• Sub section (4) state that when the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life, the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so sentenced. 

What are the Case Laws Related to Suspension of Conviction? 

• Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr.(2023): 
  • The Supreme Court has held that in order to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 of CrPC, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable.   
• State of Rajasthan v. Salman Salim Khan, (2015): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the power of suspension of conviction shall be used only in exceptional circumstances where failure to stay conviction would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences and thus of some foreign country is not granting permission to visit said country on the ground that accused has been convicted of an offence and has been sentenced under Indian Law said order cannot be a ground to stay order of conviction. 
• State of TN v. A Jaganathan, (1996): 
  • The Supreme Court has laid down the guideline to be followed in exercising the discretion for suspension of conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal or revision. Certain Government servants were convicted for serious criminal offences (sections 392, 218 and 466 IPC). Suspension of conviction and sentence without considering the moral lapses of the convicts were held to be not a proper exercise of discretion.