SHIVANI TYAGI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 05-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Authors
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 36 : 2024 INSC 343
Shivani Tyagi 
v. 
State of U.P. & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024)
05 April 2024
[C. T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of 
the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on 
bail, in an acid attack case.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of 
sentence pending appeal, and releasing on bail – Acid attack on 
victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 
30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of 
her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 
and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High 
Court suspended the sentence and enlarged them on bail – 
Interference:
Held: (per C. T. Ravikumar, J) Mere factum of sufferance of 
incarceration for a particular period and likelihood of delay in 
disposal of cases, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, 
cannot be a reason for invocation of power u/s. 389 without 
referring to the relevant factors – Each case has to be examined 
on its own merits and based on the given parameters – Acid 
attack may completely strip off the victim of her basic human 
right to live a decent human life owing to permanent disfiguration 
– Impugned judgment reflects only non-application of mind and 
non-consideration of the relevant factors required for invocation 
of power u/s. 389 despite the fact that the case involved an acid 
attack on a young woman resulting into permanent disfiguration 
– High Court took into account the offer made on behalf of the 
convicts that they would give a payment of Rs. 25 lakhs, and that 
the evidence that the victim had incurred an amount of Rs. 21 
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
37
Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr.
lakhs for her treatment besides the period of incarceration and also 
the delay likely to occur in the consideration of appeal – Serious 
nature of the offence involved was not taken into account besides 
the other relevant parameters for the exercise of power u/s. 389 
– Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set 
aside, and the bail granted to the accused is cancelled [Paras 
9-12] – Held: (per Rajesh Bindal,J) (Supplementing) One of the 
principles of sentencing, being proportionality, if the appropriate 
punishment is not awarded or if, after conviction for a heinous 
crime, the court directs the suspension of the sentence without 
valid reasons, the very purpose for which the criminal justice 
system exists would fail – High Court directed the suspension 
of the sentence of the accused on payment of ₹ 25 lakhs to the 
victim – Amount was not accepted by the victim and the convicts 
could not be released from the jail – Also despite spending ₹ 21 
lakhs on the treatment, victim still has not been cured – Infirmity 
of the court is evident from the fact that the High Court went on 
to modify the earlier order and noted that a Demand Draft having 
been handed over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused 
be released on bail subject to Surety Bonds – Order passed in 
the Correction Application does not suggest that there was any 
consideration of the parameters laid down for grant of bail or 
suspension of sentence, instead, the High Court noticed and 
directed that the convicts have offered to pay compensation to 
the victim for grant of suspension of sentence, which when she 
refused to accept, was directed to be deposited in the court – It 
was in a way kind of “Blood Money” offered by the convicts to 
the victim for which there is no acceptability in the criminal justice 
system [Paras 6, 7, 13]
Case Law Cited
In the judgment of C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. State of 
Gujarat [1999] 3 SCR 545 : (1999) 4 SCC 421; 
Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors. [2004] Supp. 4 SCR 628 : 
(2004) 7 SCC 638; Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad 
& Anr. [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 287 : (2005) 7 SCC 
326; Khilari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2009] 
38
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
1 SCR 543 : (2009) 4 SCC 23; State of Haryana v. 
Hasmat [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 132 : (2004) 6 SCC 
175 – referred to.
In the judgment of Rajesh Bindal, J.
Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India and Others [2015] 
12 SCR 607 : (2016) 3 SCC 571 : 2015 INSC 893; 
Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal and 
Others [2017] 13 SCR 1 : (2017) 16 SCC 466 : 2017 
INSC 1296; State of Himachal Pradesh and Another 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.