‘Strike balance in criminal appeals’: SC tells high courts to avoid delays

The Supreme Court has urged high courts across the country to strike a balance between expediting criminal appeals where the accused are in jail and those where they have been released on bail, cautioning that prolonged delays in deciding the latter category of cases raise serious legal and ethical concerns if the accused are to be sent back to jail after decades.

A bench led by justice Abhay S Oka made these observations while deciding a 36-year-old homicide case. The court emphasised that appeals against convictions in cases where life sentences have been imposed should not remain pending for over a decade, only for the accused to be sent back to jail years later.

“If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority,” the bench, also comprising justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, noted.

The court highlighted the massive pendency of criminal appeals in high courts across the country, stating that while priority is often given to hearing appeals where the accused remain incarcerated, those on bail take a back seat. This, the bench noted, could lead to significant issues when an appeal is eventually dismissed after years of delay.

“Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a back seat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail,” the bench underscored in a judgment last week. It added that the old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail.

The apex court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against a 2017 high court verdict that modified the conviction of five accused from murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II). The case pertained to an incident that took place on November 1, 1989, in which the accused were initially convicted by the trial court in 1994 under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Upon appeal, the Madhya Pradesh high court in 2017 altered their conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, considering that the incident was already 28 years old and that the accused, by then, were elderly — one being nearly 80 years old and the others above 70. The high court sentenced them to the period already undergone (76 days in custody) and imposed a fine of ₹16,000 each.

During the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh government contended that reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide was unjustified, especially when the trial court had convicted the accused under Section 302. The state argued that the gap of 15 days between the assault and the victim’s death should not have been the sole ground for modifying the conviction.

However, the Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, found that there was no clear medical proof linking the injuries inflicted upon the deceased to his eventual death. The post-mortem report and expert testimony did not conclusively establish that the assault led to the victim’s demise. Given the lack of medical certainty, the court found no reason to interfere with the high court’s decision.

“We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of the victim,” the bench stated.

The court further noted that by the time the high court decided the appeal in 2017, the accused were already elderly, and the incident had taken place 28 years prior. By 2024, the case had extended to a 36-year-old legal battle. Keeping these factors in mind, the apex court declined to interfere with the high court’s verdict.