Four months and eighteen days is the time the main convict had spent in prison, the Supreme Court recorded, as it cancelled the suspension of sentence granted to him in a sarpanch poll murder case and held that delay in hearing appeals cannot by itself free those convicted of heinous offences.
New Delhi: A life sentence for conspiring to murder a rival in a sarpanch bye-election, put on hold by the Rajasthan High Court, is back in operation: the Supreme Court has set aside the suspension of sentence granted to a government teacher and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, cautioning courts against releasing convicts in heinous crimes merely because their appeals cannot be heard soon [Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.].
On October 27, 2026, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran partly allowed the appeal filed by the father of the deceased. The suspension of sentence granted to the other accused was left undisturbed, the Court finding the evidence against them weaker.
Four months and eighteen days in custody
The Court recorded that the main accused (A1) had been imprisoned for four months and eighteen days and had otherwise been on bail. The FIR was of 2017, and the accused had been on bail except for a brief incarceration during the trial.
The High Court had suspended the sentences essentially because a large number of criminal appeals were pending before it and could not be disposed of in the near future. The Supreme Court did not accept that reasoning as sufficient. The Bench said releasing persons convicted of heinous offences, after conviction by one court, only because their appeals cannot be heard immediately questions the validity of the judicial process itself.
“Whatever be the reason for the pendency of cases, the Courts cannot be complacent and release criminals convicted for heinous offences, especially when they have not undergone sentence for any considerable period, since it puts to peril the life of the civil society; exposing the fault lines of the system, which we definitely cannot cover up but should always endeavour to overcome.”
The Court did not ignore the other side of the problem. It recognised cases where trials have run for a decade and appeals have stayed pending for another decade with the accused in custody, and said the exercise must weigh the actual incarceration suffered against the reality of long pendency. It “cannot be a knee jerk reaction to the pendency”, the Bench said.
“The Courts should be sensitive to the sentiments of the victims’ family too while being concerned with the liberty of an individual, especially when the accused stands convicted by a Court of law, no longer being enabled the presumption of innocence, like in this case.”
A rivalry over the post of Sarpanch
According to the order, the crime arose from a political rivalry. The son of the main accused (A1), a government teacher, had earlier been elected Sarpanch but vacated the office after obtaining government employment. The deceased, who belonged to a rival faction, then stood in the resulting bye-election, which the prosecution said enraged A1.
The prosecution case was that a conspiracy was hatched in which A1 deliberately kept away from the scene while, at his instigation, A6, who had earlier been in jail with A7, planned the killing, which was carried out through A11 and A12. A1 was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, while the other accused were convicted under Section 120B IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The father of the deceased, who was the first informant, challenged the High Court’s suspension order before the Supreme Court.
Threats at the Returning Officer’s office
The Bench noted evidence that A1 had openly threatened the deceased in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who was the Returning Officer, saying the deceased would not remain alive till the election. The High Court had discounted the father’s statement because it did not appear in the first information statement or his Section 161 CrPC statement. The Supreme Court said there was other credible testimony from witnesses present when the threats were made.
It also took note that A6, who allegedly arranged the assailants through A7, was still absconding, though A7 was acquitted, and that A1 had been present at a police station on the day of the murder without being summoned, which the trial court treated as an attempt to create an alibi.
“On a prima facie consideration, especially considering the threats levelled and the motive alleged, as also the specific intention coming out from the threats to ensure that the deceased does not contest the election, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail to A1.”
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Stays Murder Conviction Of Man Seeking To Contest 2027 UP Polls
Surrender in two weeks; the others untouched
The suspension of sentence granted to A1 stands cancelled. He must surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which proceedings will be taken to apprehend him. The Court declined to interfere with the suspension of sentence of the other accused.
The Bench made clear that its observations on A1’s guilt are only prima facie, as are its comments on the evidence against the others, and will not govern the hearing of the criminal appeals, which remain pending before the High Court. The convictions are under challenge in those appeals, and this article expresses no view on their final outcome.
Why the order matters
Suspension of sentence after conviction is not the same as bail before trial. Once a court has convicted, the presumption of innocence no longer operates, and the appellate court must look at whether the prosecution evidence is prima facie compelling, the gravity of the offence and the time actually spent in custody. The order reaffirms that delay in hearing appeals is a relevant factor, but not one that can override everything else.
The ruling also asks courts to keep the victim’s family in view. By separating the main accused from those against whom the evidence was weaker, the Bench shows how a convict-by-convict assessment works in practice, rather than a single order for all the accused based only on the backlog.
Case Title: Hanuman Prasad @ Hanuta Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 19778-19780 of 2026], 2026 INSC 1180
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 27, 2026