The Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Jharkhand High Court for what it described as a “casual and perfunctory” suspension of sentence granted to a murder convict. The apex court also pulled up the State of Jharkhand for failing to challenge the High Court’s order, calling the inaction of the prosecution a serious dereliction of duty. The bench expressed concern that such judicial leniency in grave criminal matters undermines the administration of justice and weakens public confidence in the legal system.
The case concerned a murder convict whose sentence had been suspended by the Jharkhand High Court during the pendency of his appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had granted the suspension without properly assessing the gravity of the offence, the evidence on record, or the seriousness of the conviction. The top court noted that the order was passed mechanically, without assigning adequate reasons or applying judicial mind to the facts of the case. It emphasized that courts must exercise great caution and adhere to settled principles while dealing with suspension of sentences in cases involving heinous crimes like murder.
According to the Supreme Court, the suspension of a sentence after conviction is not to be treated as a matter of routine. The bench stated that once a person is found guilty and sentenced by a trial court after due process, a presumption of correctness attaches to that finding, and appellate courts must respect that presumption while considering suspension applications. The Court further held that the grant of suspension must depend on cogent reasons supported by evidence, and not be influenced by sympathy or extraneous considerations.
The bench also took serious exception to the conduct of the State authorities, observing that the government had shown “complete apathy” by not challenging the High Court’s suspension order. The Court remarked that the prosecution has a duty to protect the sanctity of judicial findings and to take appropriate legal action when such orders appear to contradict established legal principles. It directed the State to ensure accountability for such negligence and to adopt a more vigilant approach in criminal matters.
Reiterating established jurisprudence, the Supreme Court stressed that while appellate courts possess the power to suspend sentences, this discretion must be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving grave offences where societal interests and the rights of victims are at stake. The Court noted that failure to exercise this discretion judiciously can result in miscarriage of justice and erode faith in the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order suspending the convict’s sentence and ordered that the individual be taken back into custody immediately. The Court also directed the State to submit a report on the circumstances leading to its failure to contest the earlier order. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to both courts and government authorities about the importance of maintaining procedural rigor and accountability in the handling of serious criminal cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.