Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Balram Dangi vs Veer Singh Dangi on 16 April, 2025
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2000 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.12478 of 2024)
BALRAM DANGI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VEER SINGH DANGI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2001 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.15173 of 2024)
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2002 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14562 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted in all the matters.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned order
dated 24.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in Criminal Appeal No.10286 of
2023 and orders dated 10.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal
Nos.10455 of 2023 & 10286 of 2023 respectively, whereby
the High Court has allowed the applications of the
respondents – accused seeking suspension of sentence
imposed by the Trial Court for the offences under
Signature Not VerifiedSections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC, pending the
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.04.21
18:14:18 IST
Reason: said Appeals.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1
4. It appears that all the three respondents – accused
were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
148, 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC and were directed by the
Trial Court, i.e., Ist ASJ to the Court of IInd ASJ,
Datia in S.T. No.103 of 2018, to undergo R.I. for life
for the offence under Section 302 and undergo other
punishments as imposed by the Trial Court. It appears
that the cross-case being S.T. No.28 of 2007 filed by the
respondents – accused against the complainant, had also
resulted into the conviction of the complainant and
others for the offence under Sections 307/149, 324/149,
148 IPC.
5. Against the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed against the respondents – accused, they
have preferred the appeals before the High Court, in
which they also applied for the suspension of sentence
under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. The said applications have
been allowed by the High Court.
6. As transpiring from the impugned orders passed by
the High Court, it ex facie appears that the High Court
has not assigned any reasons while granting the
applications seeking suspension of sentence, though it is
mandatory under Section 389(1) to record the reasons
before suspending the sentence of the respondents –
accused, who have been convicted for the serious offence
under Section 302 of IPC. It is also needless to say
that the initial presumption of innocence is no more
2
available to the respondents – accused, who have been
convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149
7. In our opinion, the decision of this Court in the
case of “Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and
Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 123” clinches the issue involved in
the present appeals. It has been observed while
considering the scope of Section 389 of Cr.P.C as under:-
“30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa [Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7
SCC 638], this Court has indicated the factors that
require to be considered by the courts while granting
benefit under Section 389 CrPC in cases involving serious
offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to
the observations made therein, which are as follows : (SCC
pp. 639-40, paras 4-6)“4. Section 389 of the Code deals with
suspension of execution of sentence pending the
appeal and release of the appellant on bail.
There is a distinction between bail and
suspension of sentence. One of the essential
ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement
for the appellate court to record reasons in
writing for ordering suspension of execution of
the sentence or order appealed against. If he is
in confinement, the said court can direct that
he be released on bail or on his own bond. The
requirement of recording reasons in writing
clearly indicates that there has to be careful
consideration of the relevant aspects and the
order directing suspension of sentence and grant
of bail should not be passed as a matter of
routine.
5. The appellate court is duty-bound to
objectively assess the matter and to record
reasons for the conclusion that the case
warrants suspension of execution of sentence and
grant of bail. In the instant case, the only
factor which seems to have weighed with the High
Court for directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail is the absence of allegation of
misuse of liberty during the earlier period when
the accused-respondents were on bail.
3
6. The mere fact that during the trial, they
were granted bail and there was no allegation of
misuse of liberty, is really not of much
significance. The effect of bail granted during
trial loses significance when on completion of
trial, the accused persons have been found
guilty. The mere fact that during the period
when the accused persons were on bail during
trial there was no misuse of liberties, does not
per se warrant suspension of execution of
sentence and grant of bail. What really was
necessary to be considered by the High Court is
whether reasons existed to suspend the execution
of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High
Court does not seem to have kept the correct
principle in view.”
31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra,
(2002) 9 SCC 364] and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal
[Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366],
it was held by this Court that in cases involving
conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of
sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364], it was held that in
considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a
serious offence like murder punishable under Section
302IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors
like the nature of accusation made against the accused,
the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
committed, the gravity of the offence, and the
desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they
have been convicted for committing the serious offence of
murder.
32. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this Court in
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [Vasant
Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281]
and Gomti v. Thakurdas [Gomti v. Thakurdas, (2007) 11 SCC
160].
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be
to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution
and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case
in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances
of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is
to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we
shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears
to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this
Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty
long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually
takes very long for decision and disposal. However, while
undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict
has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into
4
is something palpable. To put it in other words, something
which is very 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. The appellate court should not reappreciate
the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to
pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the
case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach.”
8. Having regard to the aforestated settled legal
position, we are of the opinion that the High Court has
committed gross error in simply recording the submissions
of the learned counsels for the parties based on the
findings recorded by the Trial Court and suspending the
sentence pending Appeals without recording any reasons
for the same. Since these were cases of conviction under
Section 302 IPC, the initial presumption available to the
respondents – accused before conviction, would not be
available to them. The High Court could not have
suspended the sentence, re-appreciating the evidence at
the stage of Section 389 and trying to pick up a few
lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of
prosecution. The reason that the Appeals were not likely
to be heard in near future also would not be a valid
ground for suspending the sentence of the respondents –
accused, who have been convicted for the serious offence
under Section 302, IPC. It is only in rare and
exceptional circumstances, the benefit of suspension of
sentence should be granted by the Appellate Court to the
accused convicted for the serious offence under section
302, IPC.
5
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders
being in the teeth of settled legal position, the same
are untenable at law and deserve to be set aside.
10. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders
passed by the High Court are set aside. The respondents
– accused are directed to surrender themselves within two
weeks from today. The Appeals are allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
12. The High Court is requested to hear the Appeals
filed by the present respondents as well as the cross-
appeal(s) filed by the complainant as expeditiously as
possible.
………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
………………….J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
16TH APRIL, 2025.
6
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).12478/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-04-2024
in CRA No.10286/2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Gwalior]
BALRAM DANGI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VEER SINGH DANGI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 193532/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 193535/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 15173/2024 (II-A)
(IA No. 239454/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 239455/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(Crl) No. 14562/2024 (II-A)
(IA No. 233051/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 233052/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 16-04-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kajal Sharma, AOR [through VC]
Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR
Mr. Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
7
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. In terms of the signed Judgment, the Criminal Appeals
stand allowed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed Judgment is placed on the file)
8
[ad_1]
Source link