This article, co-authored by Shreya Jindal, a 4th-year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), and Yash Kumar, a 4th-year law student at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi, delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the suspension of sentence and conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Their collaborative effort brings forth a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions, case laws, and judicial interpretations that guide these significant aspects of criminal justice in India.
DRAWING THE LINE: SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION
In the society that we live in, there is a certain level of stigma attached to the commission of an offence that accompanies not the commission of the offence but the conviction of an individual. People refrain from transacting with a criminal offender economically and are reluctant to engage with such an individual socially in day-to-day affairs. We find a reference to the idea of the stigmatisation of an offender in Eric Ramusen’s article titled Stigma and SelfFulfilling Expectations of Criminality.It is for this reason that convicts approach the court for Suspension of Conviction even after their sentence is suspended by the court, as provided under section 389 of CrPC. Honourable Supreme Court, in the recent case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary And Anr Etc. clarified more on the purpose and scope of section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, CrPC).
What are the purpose and consequences of Suspension of Conviction? Is the suspension of conviction not deemed to be there once the court suspends the sentence of the convict? Is it right to say that with suspension of conviction, suspension of sentence is deemed to be there and that such convict can’t be sentenced?
JUDICIAL DECISIONS: IMPACT OF SUSPENSION OF CONVICTION
The Court in the recent case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary And Anr Etc. stated that the purpose of suspension of sentence following conviction is to postpone the execution of the sentence, citing Section 389 of CrPC and looking into the definition of “suspend” in Black’s Law Dictionary. The convict may be released on bond if the goal of deferment cannot be fulfilled by keeping them in jail.
Suspension of the sentence is provided under section 389 of the CrPC which discusses appeals in cases of criminal nature however there is no express provision for suspension of conviction rather it is implicit in the meaning of the above section.
Suspension of the sentence is required in case the accused appeals in a higher court against the sentence awarded from a lower court and is granted bail by such court of appeal. It is so because a convict cannot be effectively released on bail if there is an order of sentence following the conviction of the accused. Therefore, to avoid the inconsistency that the accused has a bail order from one court and an order of sentence from another which means that the accused is on bail according to one court and serving a sentence in the records of another, a bail order from a higher court needs to be accompanied by an order of suspension of execution of the sentence. If there is not a simultaneous order of suspension of sentence along with the bail order, it is bound to become infructuous. With suspension of conviction, the court might as well consider suspending the conviction of the accused person. The accused will no longer be considered to be a convict till the time the suspension continues. If it is alone sentence that the court suspends then you will still be convicted of committing the offence but will be out on bail instead of serving the sentence.
In Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, (2022) 7 SCC 628,Navjot Singh Sidhu was being tried for death due to a rash and negligent act under section 304A of IPC, and the court of session convicted him after acquittal by the trial court. He appealed in the High Court for suspension of conviction under section 389 after he got the bail. To his dismay, the High Court rejected his application for the same and he approached the Supreme Court for the same relief. This court suspended his conviction, lauding his act of resigning from the office of Member of Parliament to re-contest the election and gain back the seat rather than sticking to it without the consent of voters after his conviction. His prime objective for applying for suspension of conviction was the law laid down under Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act. This section stipulated that a member of parliament will have to give up his or her membership if he or she is convicted of an offence with imprisonment of 2 years or more than 2 years. To evade this provision, he sought suspension of conviction.
However, in the case of Sanjay Dutt v State of Maharashtra through CBI, 1995 SCC (6) 189,theSupreme Court rejected Sanjay Dutt’s application for suspension of conviction stating that his case cannot be compared to that of Navjot Singh Sidhu. Sidhu was accused of blowing the face using his fist however Sanjay possessed weapons that had the capacity to topple the state of national peace and security. And on no account can the use of force by hand be put on the same pedestal as having destructive weapons, leading to the eventual rejection of Dutt’s application for the same.
In the recent case of Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr., 2023(SC) 598,Rahul Gandhi applied for suspension of conviction in the Supreme Court after his application for the same was rejected by the court of session and High Court. Honourable Supreme Court again granted suspension of the conviction. In this case, the court highlighted the wide ramifications of imprisonment of 2 years on a member of parliament as it leads to disqualification of the person as a member of parliament and said that a person should refrain from commenting on certain issues when in Public as this might lead to controversies further impacting the political carrier of an individual. The apex court did not go into the merits of the case as the lower courts did not provide a sound reasoning behind granting the imprisonment or a speaking order of suspension.
PROVISIONS UNDER BNSS
The New Criminal Laws namely BNS, BNSS and BSA was passed in December 2023 and after notification by Ministry of Home Affairs New criminal laws came in to Force from July 1 , 2024 . BNSS stands for Bhartiya Nagrik Surakshsa Sanhita Suspension of conviction and sentence given under sec- 464 BNSS. According to sec- 464 b court can suspend the sentence and release the offender on execution of bond or bail bond as the court may think fit . Court can Impose conditions such as appearance before the court on dates and payment of fine in once or in instalments as court may deemed fit .
Government may suspend remit sentences and suspend it U./S 473 BNSS. An Appropriate government may at any time without any conditions suspend the whole sentence or any of the part of the sentence.
If the conditions on which sentence has been suspended not fulfilled the appropriate government can cancel the suspend of sentence . [ Sec- 473 [3]
Government can by special or general rules make suspend of sentence or conviction . [ SEC- 473[ 4].
PROVISION UNDER AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW ..
In U.S every state make their own laws and bring them to the enforceability . Every state has its own appellant court and supreme court . Powers are shared between Federal Government and state government . State courts dealt with matters such as breach of contract , family disputes etc. Federal court dealt with serious offences including suspension of sentence and conviction. And tender of pardon etc. If there is dispute in supreme court decision Rules of Federal government will prevail.
CONCLUSION
The order of suspension of conviction is of more benefit to the accused than an order suspending the sentence before of the wide-ranging ramifications that being convicted of an offence, has. With the three cases mentioned above, it seems that the court has from time to time used the implicit power granted to the courts under section 389 of CrPC to defend offenders from suffering consequences, of nature that are more severe than the offence itself, that they had been convicted of. The court has not been liberal with grating suspension of conviction unless it hinders the individual’s professional capacity and if the offence that he or she was convicted of was not grave. We see that in all the above cases, the convict was granted bail by the respective courts however he or she still approached the courts for suspension of conviction as mere suspension of the sentence cannot provide the relief to the accused effectively. There will be an inconsistency between the order of the two courts as in one, the person had been granted bail while in the other he has an order to serve the sentence. To settle this inconsistency in Law, the Supreme Court in the Navjot Singh Sidhu case held that courts have implicit power to grant the suspension of conviction even though there is no explicit mention of it in CrPC.
Reading the provisions of an act to letter might not fulfil its objective hence courts from time to time have adopted the purposive interpretation of statutes as for section 389 of CrPC.
This would assist in protecting the accused from bearing the brunt of conviction once he has already been granted bail.
Also read this : Case Law Summary: Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (13th August 1997)
