Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Suspension of Life Sentence: Presumption of Innocence Ends After Conviction

Heading: Background of the Case

The Supreme Court has clarified that the long-standing principle of presumption of innocence applies only until the conclusion of the criminal trial. Once a conviction is recorded, the presumption no longer survives, and appellate courts must exercise extreme caution while suspending sentences and granting bail pending appeal.

The ruling came while setting aside orders of the Patna High Court that had suspended the life sentences of two convicts — a father-son duo — involved in the murder of a village priest inside a temple in Bihar’s Rohtas district. The Court directed both convicts to surrender within ten days.

---

Heading: Facts of the Crime and Trial Court Findings

The incident occurred on 11 December 2021 inside the Mahavir Temple.

The prosecution case was that the deceased, Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a village priest, had gone to the temple with his son to perform evening rituals when a group of armed men entered the premises, accused him of political interference, and instigated violence.

While one accused fired the fatal shot, Sheo Narayan Mahto and his son Rajesh Mahto were armed with country-made pistols and actively instigated the killing by shouting that the priest should be shot. The deceased collapsed at the spot and was declared dead at the hospital.

A Sessions Court convicted both accused under:

• Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (murder with common object)

• Other related IPC provisions

• Relevant provisions of the Arms Act

Both were sentenced to life imprisonment.

---

Heading: High Court Order Suspending Life Sentence

During pendency of appeal, the Patna High Court:

• Suspended their sentence under Section 389 CrPC

• Granted bail

The High Court relied on the following grounds:

1. The accused allegedly played only an "instigating role"

2. There was a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate

3. The original inquest report was not produced

---

Heading: Supreme Court’s Findings — Error in Granting Bail

A bench of Justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria held that the High Court committed a clear legal error in treating the suspension of sentence like a re-trial of facts.

The Court ruled that:

• Presumption of innocence ends after conviction

• Re-appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible

• Suspension of sentence in life imprisonment cases must be rare and exceptional

The bench stated:

“The presumption of innocence continues only until the trial concludes. Once conviction is recorded, the presumption does not survive.”

---

Heading: Legal Principle — Suspension of Sentence is Not Routine

The Court clarified the scope of Section 389 CrPC, which deals with suspension of sentence pending appeal.

It held that:

• Suspension of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of routine

• Appellate courts must not re-evaluate evidence at this stage

• Bail post-conviction must consider gravity and nature of offence

The Court emphasised that only where there exists:

• An apparent illegality, or

• A glaring error in trial court findings

can suspension of sentence be justified.

Mere procedural objections or technical irregularities are insufficient grounds.

---

Heading: Supreme Court’s Criticism of High Court Reasoning

The Court noted that the High Court relied on immaterial considerations such as:

• FIR forwarding delay

• Non-production of original inquest report

The Supreme Court held that such issues:

• Did not weaken the prosecution case

• Were irrelevant while deciding suspension of sentence

• Could only be examined during final hearing of appeal

The Court further rejected the argument that the accused only "instigated" the murder, observing that:

• Both were armed

• Present inside temple during offence

• Fled together after the incident

• Witness and medical evidence corroborated their involvement

---

Heading: Direction to Surrender and Cancellation of Bail

In a connected judgment delivered the same day:

• The Supreme Court also cancelled Rajesh Mahto’s bail

• The High Court had granted him bail solely because his father was granted bail earlier

The Court held this approach to be mechanical and unsustainable.

Both convicts were directed to:

• Surrender within ten days

• Police were instructed to ensure custody compliance

---

Heading: Broader Significance of the Ruling

The Court reaffirmed that:

• Liberty post-conviction is not the norm

• Particularly in serious and violent offences such as murder

The judgment also has broader resonance as appellate courts increasingly face applications seeking suspension of sentence in life-term cases.

The Court reiterated that:

Suspension of sentence is fundamentally different from bail granted to an undertrial.

---

Statutes Involved

1. Section 302 IPC — Punishment for murder

2. Section 149 IPC — Common object liability

3. Arms Act provisions (as applicable in conviction)

4. Section 389 CrPC — Suspension of sentence pending appeal

5. Procedural references relating to FIR and inquest reporting

---

Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty

   Applied in balancing liberty vs. societal interest post-conviction

2. Article 136 — Supreme Court Appellate Power

   Exercised to correct improper suspension of sentence

---

Key Judicial Precedents Relied Upon / Reaffirmed

The Supreme Court relied on and reiterated principles from earlier rulings such as:

• State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar

• Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab

• Precedents distinguishing bail during trial vs. post-conviction

• Principles governing Section 389 CrPC

These precedents collectively hold that:

• Post-conviction bail requires heightened judicial scrutiny

• Appellate courts must avoid re-trial-like evaluation at the bail stage

---

Concluding Analysis

This judgment strengthens doctrinal clarity on:

• The extinguishing of presumption of innocence after conviction

• The restrictive scope of suspension of sentence in life-imprisonment cases

• The need for judicial restraint and victim-centric proportionality

It also sends a strong message that:

Courts must avoid liberal suspension of sentence where serious offences involving violence and public harm have been judicially established after full trial.