One has to acknowledge with humility and graciousness that while striking the right chord, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal and others in Criminal Appeal No. 1254 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 377 and so also in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333 that was pronounced as recently as on March 20, 2025 has been most forthcoming in advising the High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals, where the accused are on bail. This was premised on the ground that if the accused persons have remained on bail, especially in cases involving life sentences, and the appeal is ultimately dismissed after several years, then sending the accused back to prison might be difficult, particularly when they have attained old age. It was pointed out by the top court 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. Absolutely right!
We need to note that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih made these pertinent observations while deciding an appeal that had been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh pertaining to a crime that was perpetrated in 1989. What also cannot escape our unremitting attention is that the Madhya Pradesh (MP) High Court while converting the conviction under Section 302 into the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, let off the accused with the sentence already underwent by them. In the fitness of things, the MP High Court took into consideration the glaring fact that one of the accused was aged above 80 years and the others were in their seventies.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. 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 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For other offences, separate punishments were imposed, which were ordered to run concurrently.
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 2 that:
Respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2017, the High Court proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court converted the conviction under Section 302 into the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The conviction for the other offences was confirmed. The High Court noted that the incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent, Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of seventy. The respondents were let off by the High Court with the sentence already undergone. A fine of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand) each was imposed on the respondents out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) was ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and PW-2 (Ramadhar).
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 recalling and laying bare in para 3 that:
The incident is of 1st November 1989 which happened at about 4 pm. It is 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 deceasedLaxman. It is 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. Thereafter, PW-1 ran away. The respondents chased him and dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased-Laxman out of their houses and assaulted them.
While elaborating more, the Bench then observes in para 4 that:
PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. In the case of PW-2 (Ramadhar), the assault by the respondents resulted in the fracture of the ulna bone of the right hand. As regards the PW-12 (Chiranjeev), as a result of injuries inflicted by the respondents, he suffered a fracture of the radius and ulna bones of the left hand. The deceased-Laxman was initially examined by the doctors and was discharged after treatment. But, on 2nd November 1989, he complained of vomiting, headache, and dizziness. He was admitted to the district hospital Chhatarpur and was discharged on 15th November 1989. While returning home from the hospital on 15th November 1989, his condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe headache. He was admitted to the Chandla Hospital, where he died on the same night. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 (accused nos. 3 and 5, respectively) had ballams, and the remaining accused had sticks in their hands. The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 11 that:
We have examined the evidence. We have perused the post-mortem notes of the deceased. PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) was working as an Assistant Surgeon in the hospital at Chandla at the relevant time. On 2nd November 1989, the injured witnesses, as well as the deceased Laxman, were brought before him for medical examination. As stated by him, the deceased-Laxman suffered the following injuries:
Laxman had the following injuries on his body:
- Lacerated wound 4×.5×.5 cm, was on the back side of the middle of the skull.
- Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the left elbow.
- Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the upper one/third part of the first forearm.
- Swelling 5 cm in circumference in the right forearm.
- Lacerated wound 2×.2 cm in the middle of the left foot. The patient complained of pain in the injury about. Later on said that it was not lacerated wound, it was just a scratch.
- Lacerated wound, 3×.5×.5 cm, in a horizontal shape on the right eyebrow.
- Lacerated wound 2.5×.3 cm to the depth of the skin, in line with the nose.
- Lacerated wound 3×.3 cm on the right side of the nose to the depth of skin.
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 12 that:
His evidence makes it clear that the deceased was not admitted to the hospital on the date of the incident. He stated that at 6 pm on 2nd November 1989, the deceased came to him and complained of nausea and vomiting sensation as well as headache. He stated that there was swelling on the right side of his face and the right side of his nose. After treatment, he was referred to the district hospital at Chattarpur for further treatment.
It appears that he died in the night of 15th November 1989. In paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the deceased was treated in the district hospital for twelve days and was discharged. While returning home along with PW-4, he again complained of a headache and was, therefore, admitted to the hospital at Chandla, where he died on 15th November 1989. Thus, the death was fifteen days after the incident. The post-mortem report records that the cause of death was asphyxia, but the exact cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, viscera was sent for chemical examination. The report of the State Forensic Laboratory dated 27th January 1990 records that any chemical or poison was not present in the viscera of lungs, liver, spleen, kidney, brain, heart, stomach, and intestine of the deceased-Laxman. That rules out the possibility of poisoning. What is important here is what PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) stated in his examination-in-chief. In paragraph 18, he stated:
18. All the injuries were before death. Laxman had died due to suffocation. It was difficult to give a definite reason. (emphasis added)
Therefore, neither the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17 prove that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his death. Moreover, the death occurred 15 days after the incident.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 13 that:
We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal preferred by the accused. But 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. As noted earlier, when the High Court decided the appeal in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight 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 thirty-six years old.
Most rationally, it would be instructive to note that the Bench then notes in para 14 that:
When the judgment of the High Court was delivered, at least five accused were above seventy years of age, and one of them was of the age of about eighty years. A substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by the High Court by way of fine. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, the Bench in its post-script encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
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 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. 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. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 16 that:
The appeal is dismissed.
All told, the bottom-line of this notable judgment by the top court is that all the High Courts in India have been advised most clearly that criminal appeals of elderly accused on bail must be prioritized especially when crime is old! It is thus expected that all the High Courts will definitely pay heed to what the Apex Court has held so explicitly, elegantly, eloquently and effectively in this leading case! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
