In criminal law, conviction by a trial court does not mark the end of the road. The appellate system exists to ensure that errors—whether factual, procedural, or legal—can be corrected. However, appeals in India often take years to reach final hearing. During this waiting period, courts are frequently faced with a crucial question: should a convicted person continue to remain in custody even when the appeal is pending and unlikely to be decided soon?
A recent order passed by the Gujarat High Court on 09 January 2024 provides an important answer. By exercising powers under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court suspended the sentence of a convicted accused during the pendency of his criminal appeal, reinforcing the principle that justice must remain fair, humane, and balanced even after conviction .
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a criminal appeal filed before the Gujarat High Court against a judgment of conviction passed by a Sessions Court in Ahmedabad. Along with the appeal, the convicted accused filed an application seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail until the final disposal of the appeal .
The conviction related to offences under:
Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives), and
Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide)
Given the seriousness of these charges, the application required careful judicial scrutiny.
Understanding Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 389 CrPC empowers an appellate court to:
Suspend execution of the sentence, and
Release the convicted person on bail during the pendency of the appeal
This provision exists to prevent injustice in cases where:
Appeals cannot be heard expeditiously
The sentence is relatively long
The accused has arguable grounds on merits
Importantly, suspension of sentence does not wipe out the conviction. It merely pauses the punishment until the appeal is finally decided.
Trial Court Conviction and Sentence
The Sessions Court had convicted the accused and imposed:
Three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC
Seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC
Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently, making the effective sentence seven years, along with fines .
Following the conviction, the accused preferred a criminal appeal, which was admitted by the High Court.
Key Grounds Raised for Suspension of Sentence
The defence advanced several grounds in support of the suspension application:
The criminal appeal had already been admitted
Final hearing of the appeal would take considerable time
The accused was on bail throughout the trial and never misused liberty
Continued incarceration during appeal was unnecessary
Most importantly, the defence highlighted serious doubts regarding the findings of abetment to suicide, especially in light of medical evidence on record .
Mental Health as a Crucial Factor in Abetment Cases
A significant aspect of the case involved the mental health of the deceased. The defence argued that the deceased:
Had recently given birth
Was undergoing psychiatric treatment
Was suffering from postpartum depression, a recognized medical condition
It was contended that postpartum depression is known to cause emotional instability and suicidal tendencies, and therefore, the element of abetment was not clearly established.
This argument went to the root of the prosecution’s case under Section 306 IPC.
Medical Evidence Produced by the Defence
To substantiate the claim, the defence examined a psychiatric expert during trial. The expert testified that:
The deceased was under treatment for postpartum depression
Patients suffering from this condition may have suicidal ideation
The defence argued that despite this medical evidence, the trial court proceeded with conviction, making the judgment prima facie debatable and suitable for appellate re-examination .
State’s Objection to Suspension of Sentence
The State opposed the application, contending that:
The trial court had properly appreciated the evidence
Conviction was based on prosecution testimony
Offences involving suicide should not be treated lightly
The prosecution urged the High Court to reject the application and allow the sentence to continue during pendency of appeal.
Judicial Principles Governing Suspension of Sentence
While deciding applications under Section 389 CrPC, courts generally consider:
Length of the sentence
Likelihood of early disposal of appeal
Conduct of the accused during trial
Whether continued custody is necessary
Suspension is commonly granted where appeals are unlikely to be heard soon, and incarceration would render the appeal meaningless.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court referred to well-settled Supreme Court rulings, including:
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat
In Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai, the Supreme Court held that when appellate delay is inevitable, courts must give special consideration to suspending the sentence .
High Court’s Reasoning
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that:
The appeal would take substantial time for final disposal
The presence of the accused in custody was not required during appeal
The accused had complied with bail conditions during trial
The Court emphasized that punishment should not become premature or excessive merely because of systemic delays.
Conditions Imposed While Granting Bail
To balance liberty with societal interest, the Court imposed conditions such as:
Furnishing personal bond and surety
Payment of fine
Restriction on foreign travel
Maintaining law and order
These safeguards ensure that judicial discretion does not translate into misuse of liberty .
Final Order
The Gujarat High Court:
Allowed the application
Suspended execution of the sentence
Ordered release of the accused on bail pending appeal
The rule was made absolute, and the application was disposed of accordingly.
Legal Significance of the Order
This order is important because it:
Reinforces the purpose of appellate safeguards
Recognizes mental health as a relevant legal factor
Protects convicts from serving substantial portions of sentence before appeal is heard
It strengthens the principle that justice must be corrective, not merely punitive.
Conclusion
This Gujarat High Court order is a reminder that criminal justice does not end with conviction. By suspending the sentence during appeal, the Court upheld fairness, proportionality, and human dignity—values that lie at the heart of constitutional criminal jurisprudence.
FAQs
1. What is suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC?
It is a temporary halt on execution of punishment during appeal.
2. Does suspension mean the conviction is cancelled?
No. The conviction remains until the appeal is decided.
3. Can serious offences qualify for suspension of sentence?
Yes, depending on facts, sentence length, and delay in appeal.
4. Why is appellate delay important in such cases?
Because prolonged delay can make the appeal ineffective.
5. Can courts impose conditions while suspending sentence?
Yes, strict conditions are routinely imposed.