In a significant ruling that underscores a liberal judicial approach, the Supreme Court of India has held that even individuals sentenced to life imprisonment can be granted bail while their appeal is pending, provided they demonstrate a fair chance of acquittal in a higher court.
A Landmark Decision in a 1999 Custodial Death Case
Applying this pivotal principle, a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan suspended the life sentence of a Tamil Nadu police officer. The officer was convicted in a custodial death case allegedly occurring in 1999 at the Thoothukudi police station. The relief was granted after senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Anand Verma successfully highlighted critical contradictions in the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The bench elaborated on the legal distinction, stating, "When the court is called upon to consider the plea for suspension of a substantive order of life imprisonment, the considerations are different." It clarified that for fixed-term sentences, appellate courts may adopt a more liberal stance unless exceptional circumstances exist. However, for life terms, the court must assess if there is anything palpable on record indicating the appellant has fair chances of succeeding in the appeal and securing an acquittal.
Court Finds Testimonies "In Direct Conflict"
The Supreme Court's decision hinged on a prima facie evaluation of witness reliability. The bench noted that the oral evidence of Prosecution Witness 4 (PW 4) and Prosecution Witness 5 (PW 5) was in direct conflict on material aspects with the account given by Prosecution Witness 2 (PW 2). This inconsistency formed the crux of the court's reasoning for granting interim relief.
Reiterating settled law, the judgment explained that a conviction can legally rest on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, but only if it is deemed wholly reliable. If found wholly unreliable, it can be discarded entirely. "There could be a third category wherein the court may find the evidence of a solitary eye-witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and in such a situation, the court must insist for corroboration in material particulars," the bench observed.
Evidence "Does Not Inspire Confidence"
Applying this legal framework, the justices stated, "We tried exactly to do the same thing by cursorily looking into the evidence of the PW 4 and PW 5 respectively. Prima facie, the oral evidence does not inspire confidence." This lack of confidence in the prosecution's key testimonies persuaded the court to accept the appellant's plea.
Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the life sentence, allowing the police officer to be released on bail pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal before the High Court. This ruling sets a clear precedent for how appellate courts should handle bail petitions in life imprisonment cases where the evidence presented during trial appears questionable or contradictory.
