Arguments in brief

Issue- . Whether the Sentence awarded to Sherlock is liable to be suspended during the
pendency of appeal before the Hon’ble Court?

The sentence awarded to Sherlock is liable to be suspended during the pendency of an appeal,
as it upholds principles of justice, fairness, and the presumption of innocence. This ensures
that individuals have the opportunity to fully exercise their legal rights and minimizes the risk
of irreversible harm in the event of a potential miscarriage of justice. The Indian legal system
is based on the "Presumption of Innocence," which means that any individual accused of a
criminal offense is entitled to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty through a lawful
process. Suspending a sentence during the appeal process acknowledges this principle, as it
allows individuals to maintain their freedom during the appeal process. The appellate court
has the power to direct the suspension of an accused's sentence pending the appeal and
release them on bail based on the nature of the offence and facts and circumstances of each
case. Suspending a sentence during the pendency of an appeal underscores a commitment to
fairness and integrity within the legal system, demonstrating its dedication to rectifying
potential miscarriages of justice and ensuring accurate, justifiable decisions.

Arguments Advance

Issue- . Whether the Sentence awarded to Sherlock is liable to be suspended during the
pendency of appeal before the Hon’ble Court?

1) Sentence awarded to Sherlock is liable to be suspended during pendency of appeal

because the suspension of a sentence during the pendency of an appeal before the
Hon’ble Court upholds principles of justice, fairness, and the presumption of
innocence. It ensures that individuals have the opportunity to fully exercise their legal
rights and minimizes the risk of irreversible harm in the event of a potential
miscarriage of justice.
 4.1) Presumption of Innocence:

The foundation of the Indian Legal System lies in the core principle of the "Presumption of
Innocence." This signifies that any individual accused of a criminal offense is entitled to be
regarded as innocent until proven guilty through a lawful process. As a result, the Indian
criminal justice system is prominently inclined towards adopting perspectives that assist the
accused in substantiating their innocence, rather than embracing viewpoints that stand against
them.

Suspending the sentence acknowledges the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
Allowing an individual to maintain their freedom during the appeal process upholds the
presumption that they are not definitively guilty until the higher court reviews the case.

It aligns with the fundamental human rights and legal principles that individuals should not
face punishment until all legal avenues have been exhausted. This ensures that individuals
have the opportunity to fully exercise their right to a fair trial which incorporated under
Article 21 of Constitution and due process of law. In legal proceedings, the burden of proving
guilt lies with the prosecution. Until the prosecution successfully demonstrates the guilt of the
accused, the default assumption is one of innocence. Suspending a sentence during the appeal
process aligns with this presumption, as it recognizes that the conviction is not yet final and
conclusive.

In the landmark case of Coffin v. United States 156 U.S. 432 (1895), it was held that the
presumption of innocence is not just a formality at the start of a trial; it is a continuous and
overarching principle that should persist throughout the entire legal proceeding. The accused
maintains the presumption of innocence until the prosecution successfully proves guilt.

4.2) Sec 389 CrPC

It states that- "Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order
appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on
bail1"
In the context of age of consent and the legal system, the appellate court holds the authority
to order the suspension of an accused's sentence during the appeal process and can grant bail,
taking into account the nature of the offense and the specific circumstances of each case. In
the present case, it is arguable that the court should consider the suspension of punishment.
This is particularly relevant due to the consensual nature of the relationship between the
Appellate and ‘S’.

The communication and interaction between the parties indicate an ongoing relationship,
suggesting a level of understanding and mutual agreement. Therefore, based on the principle
of fairness and considering the consensual aspect of their relations, the court should find it
appropriate to suspend the punishment during the appeal. Ultimately, the decision should be
guided by a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case,
ensuring a just and equitable outcome in light of the complexities involved in matters related
to age of consent and consensual relationship.

In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) the
Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principles laid down in Section 389 of the CrPC. The
Court emphasized the discretionary power of the appellate court to grant bail during the
pendency of an appeal, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Court highlighted that the provision aims to strike a balance between the personal liberty
of the accused and the interests of justice. It reiterated that the power to suspend the sentence
or grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering factors such as the nature of the
offense, the prima facie case against the accused, and the likelihood of the accused
absconding. So, in the present case court needs to grant suspension of sentence in order to
insure the liberty of appellant.

Hence, sentence awarded to Sherlock is liable to be suspended during the pendency of appeal
before the Hon’ble Court

4.3 Avoiding Irreversible Consequences:

Imprisonment and other punitive measures are irreversible once implemented. Suspending
the sentence prevents irreversible consequences while the appeal is ongoing, recognizing the
gravity of the potential harm that could be inflicted on an innocent person if the conviction is
later overturned.

This precautionary measure becomes especially crucial in light of the possibility that the
conviction may be overturned upon appeal. Recognizing the fallibility of legal proceedings,
the suspension of the sentence acts as a protective buffer against unjust outcomes. It
underscores the principle that an individual should not endure irreversible harm in the form of
imprisonment until all legal avenues have been exhaustively explored.

4.4 Fairness in Legal Proceedings

The practice of suspending a sentence during the pendency of an appeal underscores a

commitment to fairness and integrity within the legal system. Recognizing the fallibility of
legal processes, this approach acknowledges that errors may occur in initial verdicts and that
cases warrant thorough review.

By allowing the suspension of a sentence, the legal system demonstrates its dedication to
rectifying any potential miscarriages of justice and ensuring that decisions are accurate,
justifiable, and in alignment with the principles of due process. This commitment to fairness
not only protects the rights of the accused but also upholds the public's trust in the legal
system, emphasizing that justice is an evolving and dynamic process subject to scrutiny and
correction when necessary. Overall, the suspension of a sentence during an appeal contributes
to the ongoing pursuit of a legal system founded on principles of fairness, transparency, and
the quest for accurate outcomes.