Sentence Suspended for Convict with Life-Threatening Ailments and Advanced Age Despite Previous History as Proclaimed Offender

In brief

The question

1. Whether the sentence of a convict for a heinous offense (murder) can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal solely on medical and humanitarian grounds despite a history of absconding.

The court held

The High Court allowed the application in part, granting a limited suspension of sentence for six months (from June 15, 2026, to December 15, 2026) to allow the applicant to seek specialized medical treatment.

It also directed

The holding was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000, disclosure of the place of residence and medical institution, a mandate to surrender by 2:00 p.m. on December 15, 2026, and submission of periodic medical status reports.

01Facts

The applicant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the 1984 murder of Shankar Prashad and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, on April 1, 2024.

¶ 1-2

Following the incident, the applicant absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender in 1986; he was only apprehended 34 years later in 2020.

¶ 7-8

As of February 2026, he had undergone approximately 6 years and 6 months of his sentence.

¶ 9

The applicant sought suspension of sentence during the pendency of his appeal, citing his advanced age (70 years) and deteriorating health, specifically chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and breathing issues requiring nebulization and oxygen.

¶ 11-12, 15

The State opposed the application, highlighting the applicant's 36-year period of absconding.

¶ 16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the sentence of a convict for a heinous offense (murder) can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal solely on medical and humanitarian grounds despite a history of absconding.

¶ 10-18

ii.2. Whether the current medical condition of the applicant constitutes a "life-threatening" infirmity requiring specialized treatment outside of the prison environment.

¶ 15/23

03Law Applied

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the suspension of sentence pending appeal.

¶ 1

The constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the State's obligation to preserve a prisoner's health.

¶ 21

The doctrine derived from Vijay Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement that "infirmity" includes disabilities incapacitating daily routine activities, and that "sick" or "infirm" conditions must be treated with a lenient, humanitarian approach.

¶ 19-21

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 82 Section 83

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 Section 45

04Reasoning

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense and the applicant’s long history of absconding against his current critical health status.

¶ 16-23

The Court noted that during a previous 28-day parole in 2025, the applicant surrendered on time without adverse reports.

¶ 17

The Court placed heavy reliance on the medical opinion from the Jail Medical Officer, which confirmed the applicant suffers from COPD with "life-threatening" potential and requires "constant supervision" not fully available in jail.

¶ 15

Reasoning that a prisoner cannot be "left in the lurch" when facing serious ailment, the Court determined that humanitarian considerations and the right to health outweighed the risk of flight, provided stringent conditions and a limited duration of suspension were imposed.

¶ 21-23