NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that 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.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih 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, and if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade.
SC Advocates Fast-Tracking Appeals for Elderly Accused on Bail
The court felt, therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority.
"In all the major High Courts in our country, there is a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. 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 bench said.
Supreme Court Highlights Delay Concerns in Criminal Appeal Hearings
In its judgment on March 20, 2025, the court dismissed the Madhya Pradesh government's appeal against the High Court's August 24, 2017 judgment which converted conviction of the respondents from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and let off all the accused with the sentence already served by them.
The High Court noted that the incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent, Shyamlal, was nearly 80 years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of 70.
The incident happened on November 1, 1989 in which the respondents allegedly with a common intention and object assaulted Laxman and other prosecution witnesses, including Siroman, for they had cut the tail of a buffalo belonging to them. Laxman had died 15 days after the incident.
After considering the matter, the bench said, "The fact remains that the medical evidence creates a 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, the bench further added. The court pointed out when the High Court decided the appeal in 2017, the incident was already 28 years old.
"When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the incident is almost 36 years old," the bench said.
