The Supreme Court has underlined that a person loses the benefit of the presumption of innocence once convicted by a court of law, cautioning appellate courts against re-appreciating evidence and suspending life sentences unless there are compelling indications that the conviction may not ultimately survive scrutiny.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan made the observation while setting aside Allahabad high court orders that had suspended the life sentences of three convicts in the 2017 murder of Meerut municipal councillor Aarif and his associate Shadab.
“Once the accused is held guilty the presumption of innocence no longer remains,” held the bench in a recent order, emphasising that this principle must guide appellate courts while considering applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal.
The ruling came on appeals filed by the complainant, Aamir, against separate high court orders granting bail to convicts Shakeeb, Shariq and Kashif.
The judgment is significant for its restatement of the law governing suspension of sentence after conviction, particularly in serious offences carrying life imprisonment.
The bench said that where a person convicted of murder seeks suspension of sentence pending appeal, the appellate court’s inquiry is limited. The court must examine whether there exists something “gross” or “very palpable” in the conviction which makes it more than prima facie apparent that the convict has a fair chance of acquittal.
“It is a well-settled position of law that when a convict of an offence of murder who has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment seeks suspension of the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment and release on bail pending the criminal appeal, the relevant consideration at the end of the appellate court should be to see whether there is anything gross or something very palpable on the basis of which the appellate court is more than prima facie convinced that there are more than fair chances of the convict getting acquitted,” it noted.
The bench underscored that appellate courts should ordinarily remain “loath and circumspect” while dealing with such applications. “The appellate court should ordinarily not re-appreciate the evidence and try to find out some lacunas here or there in the evidence,” it added.
The observations came as the court examined the high court’s reasoning for granting bail to the convicts. The high court had prima facie found merit in an argument that there was a conflict between the eyewitness version and the medical evidence regarding the injuries suffered by the two deceased persons. It had also expressed doubts about the applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the nature of the injuries suggested that only one weapon may have been used.
But the Supreme Court found the approach legally unsustainable. Referring to the doctrine of unlawful assembly, the bench said that once Section 149 IPC is invoked, the prosecution is not required to attribute a specific overt act to every accused person.
“Once an accused is found to be one of the members of the unlawful assembly and his presence in the unlawful assembly is established, there need not be any overt act on his part,” it pointed out.
The bench indicated that the high court had effectively entered into an assessment of evidence that would properly fall for consideration at the final hearing of the criminal appeals rather than at the stage of deciding whether a convicted person should remain in custody.
Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the appeals, the Supreme Court said it was not convinced by the reasons assigned by the high court for releasing the convicts on bail.
The court was dealing with the murder of Aarif, a Meerut municipal councillor, and his friend Shadab, who were shot dead on July 9, 2017 in Meerut. According to the prosecution, the murders were carried out because both men were key witnesses in the 2016 murder case of a transgender person.