Case title: Shivani Tyagi vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case no: Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024
Order on: April 5, 2024
Qoram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Fact of the case:
In this case, Shivani Tyagi, the appellant, was a victim of an acid attack. The private respondents (convicted individuals) were found guilty of attacking her with sulfuric acid, resulting in severe injuries that included 30 to 40 percent burns on her body. The trial court convicted the respondents and sentenced them to life imprisonment for their crimes, which included charges under Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant challenged the suspension of the sentence and the subsequent release on bail of the convicted individuals. The trial court had previously ordered the suspension of the sentences based on the respondents’ offer to pay Rs. 25 lakhs for the appellant’s medical treatment, acknowledging that she had incurred Rs. 21 lakhs in medical expenses.
Issues framed by Court:
Whether the suspension of the life sentences and the release on bail of the convicted individuals were justified under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
Legal provisions:
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC): This section deals with the suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal against conviction and the release of the appellant(s) on bail. The provision mandates that reasons must be recorded in writing for such suspension and release.
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 307: Attempt to murder.
Section 326A: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant contended the severe nature of the crime, pointing out that the respondents were convicted of an acid attack that resulted in severe and permanent disfigurement. She argued that the serious nature of the crime warranted the continued incarceration of the respondents. The appellant contended that the High Court’s decision to suspend the sentence based on the respondents’ offer of Rs. 25 lakhs for her treatment was inappropriate. She argued that financial compensation should not influence the decision to suspend a sentence in cases involving heinous crimes. The appellant argued that the High Court did not properly consider the relevant factors required under Section 389 Cr.PC when suspending the sentences. She maintained that the High Court’s decision lacked a thorough assessment of the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the victim.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondents highlighted their offer to pay Rs. 25 lakhs for the appellant’s medical treatment, arguing that this demonstrated their willingness to make amends. They suggested that this offer should be considered a mitigating factor in favor of suspending their sentences. The respondents argued that they had already spent a considerable amount of time in jail and that the appeals process was likely to be lengthy. They contended that this period of incarceration, combined with the compensation offer, justified the suspension of their sentences and their release on bail. The respondents cited State of Haryana v. Hasmat case, where serious offence like Murder is punishable under Section 302 of IPC where sentences were suspended, arguing that their situation warranted similar consideration. They referred to the general principles that favor suspension of sentences in certain circumstances, especially where delays in the appellate process are expected.
Court analysis & Judgement:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the acid attack caused permanent disfigurement and severe trauma to Shivani. The seriousness of such a heinous crime cannot be underestimated. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for suspending the attackers’ sentences just because they offered to pay Rs. 25 lakhs for Shivani’s treatment. This approach was deemed inappropriate for such serious offenses. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, canceling the suspension of the sentences and the bail granted to the respondents. The court directed the respondents to surrender before the trial court within four days, failing which they would be re-arrested and committed to custody. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeals, overturning the High Court’s order that had suspended the sentences of the respondents and released them on bail. The court stressed the importance of thorough and reasoned assessments in decisions involving the suspension of sentences for serious crimes. It highlighted the necessity of considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the broader implications for public interest and social security.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
Click to view the full judgement
