SC to High Courts: Speed up criminal appeals, avoid delays

The Supreme Court has directed high courts to balance criminal appeal hearings, prioritizing cases where the accused are out on bail alongside those where they remain in jail. It warned that prolonged delays in bail cases could cause serious legal issues if the accused return to prison after decades.

A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka made these remarks while deciding a 36-year-old homicide case. The court stressed that appeals in life sentence cases should not stay pending for over a decade. Long delays, it noted, raise serious concerns when an accused is sent back to jail after years of freedom.

The bench, including Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and A.G. Masih, highlighted the need to prioritize certain bail appeals. It emphasized that while appeals involving jailed accused deserve urgent attention, courts must also hear older bail appeals to avoid unjust outcomes.

“Appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail, especially life sentence cases, should not be heard after a decade. If such appeals are dismissed, the accused faces going back to jail after more than ten years. It is necessary to prioritize specific categories of these appeals,” the bench stated.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing backlog of criminal appeals in high courts. It acknowledged that while cases involving jailed individuals receive priority, those on bail often face delays. The court urged a balanced approach, considering the age of the accused and the time elapsed since the crime.

The court made these observations while hearing an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh government. The state challenged a 2017 high court decision that reduced the conviction of five accused from murder (Section 302 of the IPC) to culpable homicide (Section 304 Part II).

The case involved a homicide on November 1, 1989. In 1994, the trial court convicted the five under multiple sections, including murder, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reduced the charge in 2017. It cited the accused’s advanced age—ranging from 70 to nearly 80—and the 28-year delay in the case. The court sentenced them to time already served (76 days in custody) and imposed a ₹16,000 fine on each.

The Madhya Pradesh government argued that the high court erred in reducing the conviction. It maintained that the 15-day gap between the assault and the victim’s death should not override the trial court’s findings under Section 302.

The Supreme Court, however, found no clear medical evidence linking the assault to the victim’s death. It noted that the post-mortem report and expert testimony failed to establish a direct connection between the injuries and the fatality. Given the medical uncertainty, the bench refused to overturn the high court’s decision.

“We recognize that the accused did not appeal the high court’s ruling. However, the medical evidence raises serious doubts about whether their actions caused the victim’s death,” the court said.

By 2024, the case had stretched over 36 years. The apex court considered the lengthy delay and the advanced age of the accused in its ruling. It concluded that the high court’s decision required no further intervention, reinforcing its call for a balanced and timely approach to criminal appeals.