No presumption of innocence after accused is convicted by trial court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that once an accused is convicted by the trial court, the principle of presumption of innocence will not be applicable during the hearing of appeal and bail (Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another).In view of the same, a High Court should be very slow in granting bail to an accused person convicted by a trial court for serious offences like murder, the apex court ruled."Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC," the Court said. The judgment was delivered by a Bench Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in a criminal appeal filed against two orders of the Allahabad High Court which granted bail to four accused during the pendency of their criminal appeal.The trial court had convicted them for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that the manner in which the High Court disposed of the application for bail cannot be approved.The orders by the High Court lack clarity, the apex court said."We are at pains to note that the order granting bail to the accused pending appeal lacks total clarity on which part of the judgment and order can be said to be submissions and which part can be said to be the findings/reasoning," the top court further stated..The Court in this regard explained how a judgment should be written.“A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. The reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical,” the Court said.It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible, the Court said."The judicial opinion is to be written in such a way that it elucidates in a convincing manner and proves the fact that the verdict is righteous and judicious. What the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides," the judgment stated..Regarding the instant case, the Court ruled that release of accused on bail during pendency of appeal is legally unsustainable."The High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC. Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial Court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter," the Court reiterated.The Supreme Court also took objection to the fact that the High Court even failed to take note of the obstruction and derailment caused in the investigation on the part of the accused."The trial Court has specifically observed while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused gave threats repeatedly to the prosecution witnesses and villagers and threatened them that if they give evidence against the accused, they would suffer dire consequences. The High Court has also not very seriously considered the two FIRs filed during trial for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC against the accused for giving threats to the complainant side and others," the top court noted.Hence, it concluded that the High Court has committed grave error in releasing the accused on bail during pendency of appeals against conviction and set aside the High Court orders..Advocates VK Mishra and Bhuvan Raj appeared for the Appellant. Advocate Srishti Singh appeared for the Respondents..[Read Judgement]