A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case revolves around the suspension of a life imprisonment sentence in an acid attack incident. The appellant, a victim of severe burns and permanent facial disfigurement, challenged the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the convicted respondents. The Supreme Court critically assessed the application of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly emphasizing the gravity of acid attacks and the principle of proportional sentencing. The High Court’s decision to suspend the sentence, based on the convicts’ offer of financial compensation, was annulled, emphasizing that justice cannot equate to “blood money.” The appeal was allowed, and bail was canceled.

Keywords:

1. Acid attack
2. Suspension of sentence
3. Life imprisonment
4. Bail cancellation
5. Proportionality in sentencing

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1957-1961 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
05 April 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal

vi) Author:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal

vii) Citation:
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 36 : 2024 INSC 343

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly stated.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Victim Compensation, Sentencing Principles, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal concerns the High Court of Allahabad’s decision to grant bail to five convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for an acid attack that caused severe injuries to the victim. The High Court relied on the convicts’ voluntary financial compensation offer and the time anticipated for appeal disposal. The victim, unsatisfied with this reasoning, challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. Acid attack cases evoke complex legal and moral questions about justice, compensation, and punishment.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant, a 31-year-old woman, suffered a sulfuric acid attack, leading to 30-40% burns and permanent disfigurement of her face, chest, and hands.
2. The accused were convicted under Sections 307/149 (attempt to murder with common intent) and 326A/149 (acid attack causing permanent damage) of the IPC.
3. The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
4. The High Court later granted bail based on:
   • The accused’s voluntary offer to pay ₹25 lakhs for the victim’s treatment.
   • Anticipated delays in appeal proceedings.
   • The accused’s previous good conduct during bail.
5. The victim rejected the financial offer, questioning the ethicality of such “blood money” in heinous crimes.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court erred in suspending the life imprisonment sentence and granting bail based on monetary compensation and delays in appeal.
2. Whether Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was correctly applied by considering the gravity of the offense and sentencing principles.
3. The role of proportionality in sentencing and whether heinous crimes like acid attacks merit leniency under bail provisions.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the High Court disregarded the severity of the crime and the permanent impact on the victim’s life.
2. Section 389 mandates careful consideration of factors such as the gravity of the offense, nature of punishment, and social security. The High Court failed in this regard.
3. Allowing suspension of sentence in such cases undermines public confidence in the justice system.
4. Compensation cannot substitute justice in heinous crimes like acid attacks, where the victim’s rights and dignity are irreparably harmed.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsel for the accused contended that incarceration during trial and anticipated delays in appeal disposal justified the suspension of sentence.
2. The accused voluntarily offered ₹25 lakhs as compensation for the victim’s ongoing medical expenses, aligning with humanitarian considerations.
3. No evidence was presented to suggest the accused posed a threat to society or would misuse their liberty if released on bail.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 389, Cr.P.C.: Mandates that courts record reasons for suspending sentences during appeal, ensuring the decision aligns with justice and public interest.

Sections 307/149 and 326A/149, IPC: Penalize acts causing grievous harm and disfigurement with life-threatening consequences, reflecting the seriousness of acid attacks.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Suspension of life imprisonment cannot hinge solely on incarceration periods or delays. Heinous crimes demand stricter scrutiny under Section 389.
2. Compensation offers must not overshadow judicial principles of punishment and proportionality.
3. Acid attacks profoundly violate victims’ fundamental rights to dignity and a decent life, necessitating unwavering judicial accountability.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. The concept of “blood money” contradicts the ethos of criminal justice, which prioritizes societal well-being over individual settlements.
2. Courts must actively deter offenses like acid attacks by ensuring consistent and severe penalties.

c. Guidelines

• Sentencing must align with the principles of proportionality and deterrence, especially in cases involving gender-based violence.
• Financial compensation, while commendable, cannot justify leniency in heinous crimes.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding stringent punishment for acid attacks, which represent gender-based violence and societal harm. The Supreme Court’s decision strengthens public trust in the justice system by emphasizing proportionality and victim dignity.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571.
2. Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal, (2017) 16 SCC 466.
3. Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 389.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 326A.