2021 (10) TMI 755 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns bail decision, orders immediate surrender & impartial appeal review. Importance of well-reasoned judgments.

Shakuntala Shukla Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused during the pendency of their appeals, emphasizing the seriousness of the ... Murder or death by falling in the well under the influence of liquor - giving threats for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC - presumption of innocence - HELD THAT:- The order granting bail to the accused pending appeal lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be the findings/reasonings. It does not even reflect the submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor opposing the bail pending appeal. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State opposing the bail pending appeal which has not been even referred to by the High Court. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and has disposed of the application for bail pending appeal cannot be approved. It is very unfortunate that by this judgment, we are required to observe the importance of judgment; purpose of judgment and what should be contained in the judgment. It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. The judicial opinion is to be written in such a way that it elucidates in a convincing manner and proves the fact that the verdict is righteous and judicious. What the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides - there is a total lack of clarity on the submissions, which part of the order is submission, which part of the order is the finding and/or reasoning. Even, the High Court has also not considered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation against the accused and their antecedents and conduct by giving threats to the witnesses during trial and even thereafter. The High Court ought to have noted that when the High Court released the accused on bail pending appeal, they have undergone only 8 months sentence against the life sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Even on merits also, the High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail to the accused during the pendency of their appeals.2. Proper appreciation of evidence and seriousness of the offense by the High Court.3. Conduct of the accused during the investigation and trial.4. Adequacy and clarity in the High Court's judgment.Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Bail to the Accused During the Pendency of Their AppealsThe High Court released the accused on bail pending their criminal appeals. The original complainant, the widow of the deceased, challenged this decision. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order lacked clarity and did not properly consider the seriousness of the offense and the gravity of the accusation against the accused. The High Court's decision to grant bail was based on parity, following the release of the main accused, Swaminath Yadav, without adequately addressing the individual circumstances of each accused.2. Proper Appreciation of Evidence and Seriousness of the Offense by the High CourtThe Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court failed to appreciate the detailed judgment and order of the trial court, which convicted the accused for serious offenses under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The trial court's findings were based on substantial evidence, including witness testimonies and the post-mortem report, which contradicted the initial investigation report. The Supreme Court highlighted that once the accused are convicted, there should not be any presumption of innocence, and the High Court should be very slow in granting bail.3. Conduct of the Accused During the Investigation and TrialThe Supreme Court noted the accused's conduct during the investigation and trial, including giving threats to prosecution witnesses and villagers, which was documented in FIRs filed under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The trial court had also convicted the investigating officer and the doctor who performed the post-mortem for their roles in derailing the investigation. The High Court, however, did not consider these aspects seriously and took a casual approach towards the criminal history of the accused.4. Adequacy and Clarity in the High Court's JudgmentThe Supreme Court criticized the High Court's judgment for lacking clarity and failing to provide specific reasons for granting bail. The judgment did not reflect the submissions of the Public Prosecutor or consider the detailed counter affidavit filed by the State opposing the bail applications. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a well-reasoned judgment that clearly delineates the facts, issues, arguments, application of law, and the final decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's orders granting bail, and directed the accused to surrender forthwith to serve their sentences. The High Court was instructed to decide the pending appeals on their merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the necessity for judicial clarity and thorough consideration of the seriousness of offenses and the conduct of accused individuals during legal proceedings.