Appeal Backlog Alone No Reason to Suspend Life Sentence: Supreme Court Cancels Sarpanch-Candidate Murder Convict's Bail

The prosecution alleged that political rivalry led to the murder of a candidate in a Sarpanch bye-election, held after A1's son, the earlier Sarpanch, vacated office on taking government employment. A1, a Government Teacher, allegedly stayed aloof while A6 planned the killing at his instigation and A11 and A12 carried it out (para 2). A1 was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; the other party respondents were convicted under Section 120B and sentenced to 10 years (para 3). The High Court suspended their sentences, essentially because many criminal appeals were pending. The deceased's father, the first informant, appealed (para 4).

A1 was accused of masterminding the crime, though admittedly absent from the scene (para 6). Witnesses spoke of the rivalry and of A1 openly threatening, in the office of the SDM who was the Returning Officer, that the deceased would not be alive till the election; the High Court's finding that the father admitted omitting the threat from his first statements found no support in the Trial Court's judgment, and other witnesses credibly spoke of the threats (para 7). PW40, an Assistant Commissioner, said A1 came to the police station unsummoned on the day of the crime, which the Trial Court read as an attempt to create an alibi (para 8). Prima facie, given the threats, motive and intention, the High Court erred in granting A1 bail (para 8). Against the others, the number-plate and SIM-card evidence failed as witnesses turned hostile, and the room-booking witnesses identified no perpetrator, so their suspension stood (paras 9-10). The Court warned against releasing convicts in heinous offences only because appeals cannot be heard soon (para 12). A1 had served four months and eighteen days (para 13).