The Supreme court criticized the notion of “blood money” and underscored that serious crimes like acid attacks should not be trivialized by monetary settlements.
Case title: Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3484-3488 of 2024)
Order on: 5th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, the case of Shivani Tyagi versus the State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024) has brought attention to the suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on bail, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes like acid attacks. Let’s delve into the facts, submissions, issues, court’s analysis, and the final judgment of this crucial case.
Shivani Tyagi, the appellant-victim, was subjected to a brutal acid attack resulting in severe injuries, including deep burns on her face, chest, and hands. The attack left her permanently disfigured, highlighting the grave consequences of such a heinous crime. The perpetrators, five in number, were convicted under Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
On behalf of Shivani Tyagi, the victim of the heinous acid attack, submissions were made regarding the severity of the crime and the need for judicial prudence in dealing with such cases. The appellant’s counsel argued that the impugned orders reflected a lack of consideration for the gravity of the offense and failed to adequately assess the relevant factors for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It was emphasized that the permanent disfigurement caused by the acid attack warranted careful examination and serious consideration of all parameters.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents, representing the convicted individuals, made submissions regarding the offer of compensation and the delay in the appeal process. They argued that the offer of compensation, along with the period of incarceration and the likely delay in the appeal proceedings, justified the suspension of the sentence and grant of bail. However, the appellant contested that such factors alone could not override the seriousness of the offense and the need for proper judicial scrutiny.
Key Considerations by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to underscore the importance of recording reasons for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the Cr.PC. It highlighted that in cases involving serious offenses, such as acid attacks, a careful assessment of relevant factors is imperative. Factors such as the nature and severity of the offense, the manner of its commission, and the gravity of the charges should be objectively evaluated.
Ruling and Implications:
After a meticulous examination of the impugned orders and the arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the orders lacked proper consideration of the relevant factors. It emphasized that the seriousness of the offense, especially in cases of acid attacks resulting in permanent disfigurement, necessitates diligent scrutiny.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Court deliberated on Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on bail.
It emphasized the need for the appellate court to objectively assess the case and record reasons for granting suspension of sentence and bail. The Court cited previous judgments to highlight the importance of considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or threats to the victim.
ISSUE –
- Whether the court properly applied the principles under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) in suspending the convicts’ sentence.
- Whether the court adequately considered the gravity of the offense and other relevant factors before granting bail to the convicts.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed previous decisions and legal provisions related to the suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. It emphasized that each case must be examined on its merits, especially in serious offenses like acid attacks. The court underscored the importance of considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and potential threat to the victim or witnesses.
The court, after a thorough examination of the facts and legal principles, held that the impugned order lacked proper application of mind and failed to consider the gravity of the offense adequately. Therefore, it set aside the order suspending the convicts’ sentence and canceling their bail. The appellants were directed to surrender before the trial court for committal to judicial custody within four days, failing which the convicts would be rearrested.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Shivani Tyagi case sets a significant precedent in cases involving acid attacks and other serious offenses. It underscores the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors before suspending a sentence or granting bail, ensuring justice for victims and maintaining social security. This ruling reaffirms the commitment of the judiciary to uphold the rights of victims and deter perpetrators of heinous crimes.
Despite an offer of compensation by the convicts, the victim refused to accept it, leading to a correction application. The court emphasized the severity of acid attacks, stating that no amount of compensation can truly address the trauma caused. It cited previous cases highlighting the psychological and physical impact of acid attacks and the need for stringent measures to prevent such crimes. The court also discussed the principles governing the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that bail should not be granted solely based on the accused’s ability to pay compensation. The court criticized the notion of “blood money” and underscored that serious crimes like acid attacks should not be trivialized by monetary settlements.
In the fight against such atrocities, justice must not only be served but also seen to be served, and the Shivani Tyagi case marks a crucial step towards achieving that goal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A