Appeals And Post-Conviction Procedures
⚖️ I. Introduction
Appeals and post-conviction procedures are legal mechanisms allowing a convicted person to challenge a judgment, seek modification of sentence, or request a review or mercy. They are essential to ensure justice, fairness, and correction of judicial errors.
Key Objectives:
Correct errors of law or fact.
Safeguard constitutional and procedural rights of the accused.
Provide finality while maintaining fairness in criminal justice.
⚖️ II. Types of Appeals and Post-Conviction Remedies
1. Appeal to a Higher Court
Section 374 CrPC: Appeal against conviction or sentence by a Sessions Court.
Section 379 CrPC: Appellate powers of High Courts over Sessions Courts.
Section 386 CrPC: Appellate powers of High Court over trial courts.
Essence: An appellate court can confirm, reverse, or modify conviction and sentence.
2. Special Leave Petition (SLP)
Article 136, Constitution of India: Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal against any judgment of any court.
Discretionary, usually for substantial questions of law or gross miscarriage of justice.
3. Revision
Section 397 CrPC: High Court can revise orders of lower courts.
Section 401 CrPC: Powers of revisional jurisdiction are limited to correcting errors without appeal.
4. Review
Section 114 CrPC / Supreme Court Rules: A party can request review of a judgment if there is error apparent on record.
5. Curative Petition
Introduced by Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
Remedy after review is dismissed, to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
6. Mercy / Clemency Petitions
Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor): Power to pardon, commute, or remit sentences, typically in capital punishment or life imprisonment cases.
⚖️ III. Key Case Laws on Appeals and Post-Conviction Procedures
Case 1: Kehar Singh & Others v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 609
Facts:
Kehar Singh was convicted for conspiracy in the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating appeal is a safeguard but not a ground for retrial without merit.
Observed that appellate courts must consider evidence thoroughly but cannot substitute their own evaluation unless there is error.
Significance:
Clarified the scope of appellate review – courts cannot act as original trial courts.
Case 2: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
Death penalty was awarded; question arose regarding proportionality.
Held:
Supreme Court held that death sentence must be “rarest of rare”.
On appeal, the court can modify sentence from death to life imprisonment if circumstances warrant.
Significance:
Landmark in post-conviction review of death sentences.
Demonstrates appellate powers in sentencing discretion.
Case 3: Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388
Facts:
Petitioner sought remedy after dismissal of review petition by Supreme Court.
Held:
Court introduced Curative Petition.
Criteria: Petition can be entertained to prevent gross miscarriage of justice after SLP/review dismissal.
Principle:
Curative petitions are extraordinary remedy, applied sparingly.
Case 4: Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
Facts:
Conviction was challenged; question involved appeal and sentence reduction.
Held:
Supreme Court held appellate court has power to re-evaluate evidence and modify sentence even if conviction is upheld.
Emphasized discretionary powers of appellate courts to temper harsh sentences.
Significance:
Reiterated appellate authority over sentence modification while respecting trial court findings.
Case 5: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (also relevant here)
Note: Already discussed for death penalty. Relevance: Shows post-conviction review on proportionality and sentencing.
Case 6: Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 (also relevant)
Note: Demonstrates appeal and re-sentencing powers of High Court/Supreme Court.
Case 7: Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 728
Facts:
Challenged procedural irregularities in trial and sentence.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts can examine procedural lapses.
Conviction can be set aside if fundamental procedural safeguards are violated.
Significance:
Established principle of post-conviction remedy for procedural fairness.
Case 8: Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Facts:
Petition challenging custodial conditions and treatment after conviction.
Held:
Supreme Court allowed post-conviction relief in the form of humane treatment in prisons.
Reinforced rights of convicts after judgment.
Case 9: Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 626 (Death sentence confirmation)
Held:
Supreme Court upheld death sentence on appeal, showing appellate courts can review evidence and mitigate or confirm sentences.
⚖️ IV. Key Principles on Appeals and Post-Conviction Remedies
| Type of Remedy | Court/Authority | Scope | Key Case Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular Appeal | High Court / Supreme Court | Challenge conviction or sentence | Kehar Singh v. UOI, Swamy Shraddananda |
| Special Leave Petition (SLP) | Supreme Court | Discretionary, substantial question of law | Kehar Singh v. UOI |
| Revision | High Court | Correct errors without appeal | Maru Ram v. UOI |
| Review | Same Court | Error apparent on record | Rupa Ashok Hurra |
| Curative Petition | Supreme Court | Extraordinary remedy post-review | Rupa Ashok Hurra |
| Mercy / Clemency | President / Governor | Pardon, commute, remit sentences | Bachan Singh v. Punjab |
⚖️ V. Observations
Appeals focus on both law and fact, but appellate courts generally defer to trial court findings unless there is misreading, non-consideration, or arbitrariness.
Sentencing discretion can be re-evaluated to ensure fairness and proportionality.
Curative and mercy petitions act as final safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
Post-conviction rights include protection against inhumane treatment and ensuring procedural compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments