The Supreme Court of India has reiterated a key principle of criminal jurisprudence, clarifying that the presumption of innocence applies only until an accused is tried and convicted, and does not survive once a court records a finding of guilt. In a significant ruling, the apex court cautioned lower courts and high courts against treating applications for suspension of sentence as opportunities to re-examine or re-appreciate evidence, emphasizing that such measures are exceptional and not routine.

The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Manmohan and NV Anjaria, in response to appeals against orders of the Patna High Court, which had suspended the life sentences of a father-son duo convicted in a temple murder case in Bihar’s Rohtas district. The Supreme Court set aside the high court’s orders and directed both convicts to surrender within ten days, holding that the lower court had committed a “clear error” in granting bail.

Core Principle: Presumption of Innocence Ends at Conviction

“The presumption of innocence of the accused, which is a principle applied in criminal jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue,” the bench stated. The judgment underscores that suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is fundamentally distinct from granting bail to an undertrial, and courts must exercise extreme caution when considering it.

The court further held that suspension of sentence should be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a gross and apparent error in the trial court’s judgment. It stressed that appellate courts must consider the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission, and the role played by the accused, without reopening the trial as if hearing the appeal itself.

The Supreme Court’s clarification is particularly relevant in high-profile cases involving serious or violent crimes, where granting liberty pending appeal is not the norm. The judgment emphasizes that courts must avoid mechanical or routine suspension of sentences, ensuring that justice is not compromised in cases where guilt has already been established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Temple Murder Case

The case concerned the killing of Krishna Behari Upadhyay, a village priest, inside the Mahavir temple on December 11, 2021. According to the prosecution, Upadhyay and his son had gone to the temple to light a lamp and perform aarti when a group of armed men forcibly entered, abused the priest, accused him of political involvement, and disrupted religious proceedings.

The prosecution alleged that one accused fired the fatal gunshot, while Sheo Narayan Mahto and his son Rajesh Mahto, both armed with country-made pistols, actively instigated the killing. Upadhyay collapsed at the temple and was later declared dead at a hospital.

A sessions court convicted both father and son under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and several other IPC provisions, in addition to violations under the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Patna High Court’s Orders and Supreme Court’s Response

During the pendency of appeals, the Patna High Court suspended the convicts’ sentences and granted them bail. The high court’s rationale included claims that the convicts’ role was limited to instigation, as well as procedural lapses, such as a three-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate and the non-production of the original inquest report.

The Supreme Court strongly disagreed, stating that such considerations were illogical and irrelevant at the stage of suspension of sentence. “Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate’s court or non-production of the original inquest report could not have guided the high court’s application of mind at the stage of suspension of sentence,” the bench observed.

The court also rejected attempts to downplay the convicts’ participation by terming it as mere instigation. Both Sheo Narayan and Rajesh Mahto were armed, present at the scene, and fled together after the shooting. Witness testimony, medical evidence, and the trial court’s findings clearly supported the prosecution’s version of events, the bench noted.

Connected Judgment on the Son’s Bail

In a separate but connected order, the Supreme Court also cancelled the bail of Rajesh Mahto, noting that the high court had extended him the benefit solely because his father had already been released. “Since the father’s bail order has been set aside, the son’s case sails in the same boat,” the court said, emphasizing that mechanical adoption of reasoning without independent evaluation was impermissible.

The court directed the police to ensure the convicts’ return to custody within the stipulated ten-day period.

Implications for the Unnao Rape Case

The Supreme Court’s ruling carries implications for other high-profile cases, including the 2017 Unnao rape case, where former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was granted bail by the Delhi High Court pending appeal. In that case, the high court justified suspension of Sengar’s life sentence, citing the period of incarceration already undergone and interpreting the term “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act narrowly.

The CBI has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court’s December 23, 2025, order, contending that the court adopted an unduly narrow and erroneous interpretation of statutory provisions. The new Supreme Court guidance on suspension of sentences strengthens the CBI’s position that bail for convicts of serious crimes should be exceptional and not routine.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Presumption of innocence ends at conviction: Once a trial court convicts an accused, appellate courts cannot treat them as presumed innocent when considering suspension of sentence.
2. Suspension of sentence is exceptional: Orders under Section 389 CrPC must be rare, especially in cases involving heinous or violent crimes.
3. Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible: Appellate courts should not re-evaluate evidence or pick holes in prosecution arguments during suspension of sentence hearings.
4. Gravity and role matter: The seriousness of the offence, the manner of commission, and the accused’s role are critical factors in determining suspension.
5. Avoid mechanical reasoning: Courts cannot grant bail merely due to procedural delays or past orders; each case must be independently evaluated.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms that liberty pending appeal is not automatic for convicted persons, particularly in cases involving life imprisonment and serious offences. By emphasizing the limits of presumption of innocence post-conviction, the court has reinforced judicial caution in granting suspension of sentences, ensuring that appellate courts do not inadvertently undermine trial court findings.

The judgment also serves as a guiding precedent for cases like the Unnao rape matter, highlighting the need for careful scrutiny of bail applications and strict adherence to principles that protect victims and public interest. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to balancing the rights of the accused with the demands of justice and public safety, a principle central to criminal jurisprudence in India.