The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentence of a life convict in a murder case, holding that constitutional courts must balance the demands of criminal justice with the imperative of preserving human dignity where a convict suffers from a debilitating and progressive medical condition.
A Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwalwas considering the third application for suspension of sentence filed by appellant, who was convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu, in 2023.
The Court reiterated the settled distinction between grant of bail before conviction and suspension of sentence after conviction, observing that once a conviction is recorded, the presumption of innocence stands displaced. However, while exercising powers under Section 389 CrPC (now Section 430 BNSS), the appellate court must examine whether the appeal raises substantial and arguable issues that warrant reappreciation of evidence and disclose a reasonable possibility of success.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha and the landmark ruling in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, the Bench observed that prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to the convict, is itself a relevant consideration for suspension of sentence, particularly where early hearing of appeals remains unlikely due to backlog.
The Court found that the appeal raised substantial grounds challenging the trial court’s findings and would require a detailed reappreciation of evidence at the final hearing. It clarified that recording conclusive findings at the suspension stage would prejudice adjudication of the appeal and that only a prima facie assessment of arguability was necessary.
Significantly, the Bench placed considerable emphasis on the appellant’s grave medical condition. Medical records and reports of the Medical Board at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, established that the appellant was suffering from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), particularly the severe AMSAN variant, along with serious spinal complications requiring neurosurgical interventions including laminectomy and discectomy. The records further showed persistent neurological deficits, diminished motor power, sensory impairment, prolonged dependence on physiotherapy and supportive care, as well as cardiac ailments requiring implantation of two stents.
The Court elaborated on the nature of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, describing it as a rare but potentially life-threatening neurological disorder that progressively impairs nerve function, often causing paralysis, respiratory complications, bowel and bladder dysfunction, and long-term dependence on caregivers for daily activities.
It also noted that during the course of trial the appellant had been granted interim medical relief approximately thirteen times and had received temporary suspension of sentence on four occasions after conviction, with no allegation of misuse of liberty. Each time, he had surrendered before the authorities in compliance with court orders.
Observing that constitutional courts cannot remain oblivious to the humanitarian dimension of criminal justice, the Bench held that administration of justice is not divorced from considerations of human dignity. It emphasised that where a convict suffers from a progressive neurological disorder rendering him virtually immobile and dependent on continuous care, courts must balance penal objectives with constitutional obligations to ensure humane treatment and dignity.
Considering the seriousness of the appellant’s medical condition, his repeated surgeries, cardiac complications, absence of any misuse of interim liberty, arguable grounds in appeal, and the likelihood of prolonged delay in disposal of criminal appeals, the Court held that the case presented exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of discretion under Section 389 CrPC. It observed that forcing a person afflicted with such debilitating ailments to remain incarcerated despite appropriate safeguards would be inconsistent with the humanitarian ethos underlying the Constitution.
Accordingly, the High Court suspended the appellant’s sentence pending disposal of the criminal appeal and directed his release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to conditions including annual appearance before the trial court and intimation of any change in residential address
Also Read Ambiguities In Arbitration Clauses: A Case For Pre-Arbitral Mediation
Also Read Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Salman Khan’s Personality Rights Plea Against Film ‘Kala Hiran’
