Old Age Of Accused & Long Lapse Of Time From Commission Of Offence Can Be A Ground To Give Priority To Appeals Against Conviction: Supreme Court

The Appeal before the Apex Court was preferred by the State Government challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the respondents-accused who were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment were let off with the sentence already undergone.

The 3-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail.”

Advocate Padmesh Mishra represented the Appellant while AOR Yugandhara Pawar Jha represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The incident is of the year 1989 when it was alleged that the respondents, with a common intention and object, got together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar), PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the deceased Laxman. It was alleged that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo belonging to the respondents. According to the prosecution's case, the respondents first attacked PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11 while they were working in the field. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. The deceased Laxman was initially examined by the doctors and was discharged after treatment but later his condition deteriorated and he died. The injuries suffered by PW2 and PW-12 were grievous injuries which resulted in fractures.

The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court convicted the respondents and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court noted that the first respondent, Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of seventy. It was also observed that the injuries inflicted by the respondents on the deceased were simple in nature, and there was no intention to commit murder. The respondents were let off by the High Court with the sentence already undergone. Aggrieved thereby, the State approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that neither the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17 proved that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his death. Moreover, the death occurred 15 days after the incident. It was also noticed that the medical evidence created serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the death of Laxman.

“Therefore, there is a serious doubt whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have been applied, as the medical opinion does not support the theory of homicidal death of the deceased. That is why it is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the High Court directing that the respondents-accused should be let off for the offence under Section 304, read with Section 149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone.”, it said.

The Bench noted that the incident is almost thirty-six years old. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said, “If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade.”

Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 377)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Padmesh Mishra, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocates Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar

Respondents: AOR Yugandhara Pawar Jha

Click here to read/download Judgment