Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 9585 OF 2016]
SUNITA DEVI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The defacto complainant is before us, aggrieved
by an order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in I.A. No. 1630 of 2015 in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2013, suspending the
sentence awarded to Respondent No. 2, in a case where
he had been convicted by the trial court under
Section 302 IPC.
3. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for
the State, has invited our attention to the mandatory
requirement of Section 389 Cr.P.C. He has also
invited our attention to the Judgment of this Court
in Atul Tripathi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ,
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 177, where the legal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2018.01.20
10:58:44 IST
Reason:
position has been summed up at paragraph 15, which
reads as follows :-
2
“15. To sum up the legal position :
15.1. The appellate court, if inclined
to consider the release of a convict
sentenced to punishment for death or
imprisonment for life or for a period of
ten years or more, shall first give an
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to
show cause in writing against such
release.
15.2. On such opportunity being given,
the State is required to file its
objections, if any, in writing.
15.3 In case the Public Prosecutor
does not file the objections in writing,
the appellate court shall, in its order,
specify that no objection had been filed
despite the opportunity granted by the
court.
15.4. The court shall judiciously
consider all the relevant factors
whether specified in the objections or
not, like gravity of offence, nature of
the crime, age, criminal antecedents of
the convict, impact on public confidence
in court, etc. before passing an order
for release.”
4. Admittedly, such procedure has not been followed
in this case. Therefore, the order is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the High Court for passing
orders afresh in accordance with law. We also make
it clear that since we have not referred to the other
contentions raised by the appellant herein, it will
3
be open to the parties to raise all available
contentions and the High Court shall advert to the
same and pass a reasoned order.
5. We find that the second respondent herein has
been released on bail pursuant to an order dated
12.07.2016, which order we have set aside. Having
regard to the submissions made before us, we are of
the view that the second respondent be treated on an
interim bail for a further period of three months,
within which time, we request the High Court, in any
case, to dispose of the application filed by the
second respondent for suspension of sentence afresh
as per this Judgment.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ AMITAVA ROY ]
New Delhi;
January 18, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9585 of 2016.
SUNITA DEVI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 18-01-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shashank Sorav, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv.
Ms. Fauzia Shakeel, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
non-reportable Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)