Suspension of Sentence in Murder Convictions Cannot Be Routine: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Order for Lack of Reasoning

“Presumption of Innocence Ends with Conviction — Suspension of Sentence Must Be Exceptional, Not Mechanical” - Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive judgment setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had granted suspension of sentence to murder convicts without recording any reasons.

A Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale unequivocally held: “The High Court has committed gross error in suspending the sentence without assigning reasons — especially when the conviction was for the serious offence under Section 302 IPC.”​

The Court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, signaling that suspension of sentences post-conviction in serious crimes is not to be treated lightly.

Murder Conviction and High Court’s “Reasonless” Suspension of Sentence

The respondents — Veer Singh Dangi and others — had been convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, and 323/149 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, upon their appeals, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted suspension of sentence, allowing them to remain out of custody without assigning any substantive reasons, except citing pendency of appeals and general submissions.

Challenging this, the complainant Balram Dangi moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted with concern: “The High Court could not have suspended the sentence merely recording submissions of counsel... It is mandatory under Section 389(1) CrPC to record detailed reasons while suspending sentence.”

Supreme Court’s Observations: "Suspension Must Be the Exception, Not the Norm"

Reaffirming established principles, the Court extensively quoted its earlier rulings in Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary (2023) 6 SCC 123 and Kishori Lal v. Rupa (2004) 7 SCC 638, emphasizing: “One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence.”

It warned against mechanical grant of bail or suspension post-conviction, stating: “The mere fact that during trial there was no allegation of misuse of liberty does not, per se, warrant suspension of sentence after conviction for murder.”

Further, the Court stressed: “When dealing with convictions under Section 302 IPC, it is only in rare and exceptional cases that suspension of sentence should be granted.”

Court Criticizes Re-appreciation of Evidence at Suspension Stage

The Supreme Court made it clear that at the stage of deciding a suspension application: “The appellate court should not reappreciate evidence or pick up minor lacunae or loopholes in the prosecution case.”

Instead, the Court should look for palpable, apparent grounds suggesting that the conviction may not be sustainable — something gross and evident on the record, not subtle or debatable.

Finding no such gross miscarriage of justice in this case, the Supreme Court ruled: “The High Court’s order was untenable at law and deserves to be set aside.”

Final Directions: Surrender Ordered and Appeals Allowed

Concluding the matter decisively, the Court directed:

“The respondents – accused are directed to surrender themselves within two weeks from today.”

The criminal appeals were allowed, setting aside the suspension orders.

Additionally, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of both the accused’s appeals and the cross-appeals filed by the complainants.

This judgment stands as a stark reminder that convictions for grave offences like murder cannot be lightly interfered with under the guise of suspension of sentence.

Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale sent a loud and clear message: “The presumption of innocence ends with conviction — post-conviction, suspension of sentence demands strict scrutiny and compelling reasons.”

With this strong stance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to uphold the seriousness of criminal convictions and to prevent erosion of the rule of law at the appellate stage.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025