The Supreme Court of India has set aside the orders of the Patna High Court that suspended the life sentences of two convicts in a murder case during the pendency of their appeals. The Apex Court held that the High Court committed a “clear error” by relying on “illogical considerations” such as the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and the non-production of the original inquest report to grant relief under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for murder (Section 302 IPC) primarily on the grounds that their role was limited to instigation and citing procedural delays in the investigation. The Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeals filed by the complainant, Rajesh Upadhayay, and directed the respondents, Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto, to surrender within ten days.
Background of the Case
The case stems from the murder of Krishna Behari Upadhyay, the father of the appellant-complainant. According to the prosecution, on December 11, 2021, the deceased and the appellant were at a Mahavir temple for prayers when the accused persons, armed with weapons, surrounded them. The prosecution alleged that the accused made a forcible entry into the temple, and while co-accused Munna Singh fired shots at the deceased, the respondents, Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto, who were wielding country-made pistols, instigated the act by shouting that the “Pandit should be killed.”
The Trial Court, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 19th Rohtas, convicted the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and other provisions of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the conviction, the respondents approached the Patna High Court. The High Court, via orders dated August 28, 2024, and January 16, 2025, suspended their sentences and released them on bail pending the disposal of their criminal appeals.
Reasoning of the High Court
In suspending the sentence, the High Court observed that the role attributed to the respondents was merely of “instigation.” Furthermore, the High Court justified its decision on the grounds that the First Information Report (FIR) was sent to the Magistrate’s court after a delay of three days and that the original copy of the inquest report was not produced.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s reasoning. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the Bench, termed the factors relied upon by the High Court as “illogical considerations.”
On Re-appreciation of Evidence
The Court observed that considerations regarding the delay in the FIR and the inquest report “do not have any bearing on the credence of the prosecution’s case which was otherwise established on evidence before the Trial Court.” The Bench stated:
“It is also the settled principle that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of prosecution.”
On the Presumption of Innocence
Citing the precedent in Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the Court reiterated that once an accused is convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes. The Court noted:
“The High Court should be slow in granting bail to an accused convicted under Section 302/149, IPC… Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue.”
On Suspension of Life Sentence
Referring to Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2023) and Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat (1999), the Court emphasized that suspension of sentence in cases involving life imprisonment requires a different approach than fixed-term sentences. The Court held:
“The only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point out something very palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.”
On the Role of the Accused
The Court found that the respondents’ role was “grave” and could not be discounted merely as instigation. The judgment highlighted that the respondents were present at the scene with country-made pistols and participated in the forcible entry into the temple where the murder occurred.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the Patna High Court dated August 28, 2024, and January 16, 2025. The Court held:
“The participation and role played by respondent No.2 in the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.”
The respondents, Sheo Narayan Mahto and Rajesh Mahto, were directed to surrender within ten days.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajesh Upadhayay v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. [ ] of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8736 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 8737 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice N.V. Anjaria
