Life imprisonment can only be suspended if it is obvious that the conviction is untenable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a person sentenced to life imprisonment can only be granted suspension of sentence if it appears prima facie that the conviction is untenable and the convict has a high chance of succeeding in an appeal against the conviction. The Court stated that a convict cannot be granted suspension of sentence if there is no tangible evidence that the conviction was legally untenable.

The bank consists of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the court has discretion to release a convict on bail when deciding an application for suspension of a fixed-term sentence, but no such discretion exists when deciding an application for suspension of a life sentence. The court clarified that there is a fine line between a court-imposed sentence and a life sentence. Courts must apply strict criteria when deciding an application for suspension of a life sentence.

“Where a sentence has been imposed for a specific period of time, the Court of Appeal may normally exercise its discretion to grant a generous stay of execution of that sentence, unless the file discloses exceptional circumstances justifying refusal. However, where the sentence is for life imprisonment, the only legal test the court should consider is whether there is anything tangible or obvious in the record on the basis of which the court can conclude that the conviction is legally untenable and that the convicted person has a very good chance of succeeding on appeal..”the court found.

The court stated that it was not required to re-evaluate the evidence in order to reach a reasonable conclusion that the conviction was not legally viable.

In the present case, the Supreme Court, while refusing to suspend the substantive sentence of life imprisonment, discussed the prima facie evidence before the Court of First Instance against the appellant.

Having applied the above test, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court since there was no tangible evidence to show that the conviction was legally untenable and the convicted person had very good prospects of succeeding in his appeal against the judgment.

Based on the statements of the Sr. Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim Since there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the applicant, such as the applicant having to support his widowed daughter-in-law and her three minor children, and since this is an appeal in 2022 and a final decision would therefore take some time, the Court issued a notice to the respondent/State to hear the State on the bail application, taking into account the mitigating circumstances raised by the applicant’s counsel.

Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR, appeared for the applicant.

Related Topics – ‘Fixed-term sentences are normally suspended’: Supreme Court grants bail to 70-year-old disabled man; criticises Supreme Court for lax approach

Case Title: BHUPATJI SARTAJJI JABRAJI THAKOR VS STATE OF GUJARAT, Diary No. 27298/2024

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Click here to read/download the order