Citation: Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr. [2024] 5 S.C.R. 36 (Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024)
Facts:
1. This case pertains to an acid attack on the victim (appellant) by the convicted persons (respondents).
2. The victim suffered 30-40% burn injuries, resulting in total disfigurement of her face.
3. The respondents were convicted under Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
4. The High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the respondents.
Points of Law:
1. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) deals with the suspension of the execution of a sentence pending appeal and the release of the appellant on bail.
2. The provision mandates recording reasons in writing for suspending the sentence and granting bail.
3. The Court must objectively assess the matter and record reasons for concluding that the case warrants suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
4. Relevant factors to be considered include the nature of the offense, the gravity of the offense, and the desirability of releasing the convict on bail.
5. Mere incarceration for a particular period and the likelihood of delay in disposing of appeals cannot be the sole reasons for invoking Section 389 in cases of life imprisonment for serious offenses.
Arguments:
Appellant’s Arguments:
– The High Court order reflects non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant factors for invoking Section 389.
– An acid attack can permanently disfigure the victim, stripping them of their basic human right to live a decent life.
Respondents’ Arguments:
– They offered to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation to the victim for her medical treatment.
– The evidence showed that the victim had incurred Rs. 21 lakhs for her treatment.
– Considering the long custody and the delay in hearing the appeals, the sentence should be suspended.
Other Cases Cited:
1. Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [1999] 3 SCR 545
2. Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors. [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 628
3. Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad & Anr. [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 287
4. Khilari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2009] 1 SCR 543
5. State of Haryana v. Hasmat [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 132
Judgment:
1. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the respondents.
2. The Court held that the High Court failed to consider the relevant factors and committed non-application of mind.
3. The Court emphasized that an acid attack can permanently disfigure the victim, stripping them of their basic human rights.
4. The mere offer of compensation by the respondents cannot be a ground for suspending the sentence in such a heinous crime.
5. The respondents were directed to surrender within four days, failing which they would be re-arrested and committed to custody.
The judgment highlights the importance of considering the gravity of the offense, the impact on the victim, and other relevant factors while suspending a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.PC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like acid attacks.