Guillain-Barré Syndrome and Cardiac Stents Tip the Balance: Rajasthan HC Suspends Murder Conviction Sentence
A Division Bench at Jodhpur suspended the sentence of a murder convict whose severe neurological disorder, cardiac history, and repeated prior interim releases on medical grounds made continued incarceration unjustifiable.
A vacation Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal, on 12 June 2026 allowed the third application for suspension of sentence filed by Kanaram, a resident of Dhunkar, Tehsil and PS Bidasar, District Churu, presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner. Kanaram had been convicted by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu, on 11 October 2023 in Sessions Case No. 219/2018 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, with lesser punishments for offences under Sections 341 and 323/34 of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The bench exercised its discretion under Section 389 CrPC, corresponding to Section 430 of the BNSS, on a combination of grounds: arguable appeal merits, prolonged pendency, and an exceptional medical condition that rendered continued confinement inconsistent with human dignity.
The Conviction and the Appeal Route
Kanaram's conviction arose from a sessions trial before the Special Court constituted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Churu. The trial court found him guilty of murder with common intention and imposed the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The present application before the High Court was the third such application seeking suspension of that sentence pending the criminal appeal.
Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the case, resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. He submitted that as the first appellate court, the High Court is entitled to reappraise the entire evidence. He also pointed out that Kanaram had remained on bail throughout the trial without any misuse of liberty, and that the appeal would take considerable time to be heard given the volume of pending criminal appeals.
The Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Bahti, opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
The Legal Framework: Section 389 CrPC and the Post-Conviction Standard
The bench set out the distinction between bail under Section 439 CrPC (corresponding to Section 483 BNSS) and suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS). Bail under Section 439 operates at the pre-conviction stage. Suspension of sentence under Section 389 comes into play after conviction and requires the appellate court to assess, on a prima facie basis, whether the conviction and sentence are sustainable.
Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence is displaced. However, the bench held that the appellate court, while considering suspension, must evaluate whether the grounds raised in the appeal disclose a substantial and arguable case. Where the material on record suggests that the trial court's findings may be debatable, the discretion under Section 389 CrPC can be justifiably invoked. A prima facie satisfaction regarding the arguability of the grounds suffices; the court is not required to record conclusive findings on merits, as doing so would prejudice the final adjudication.
The bench drew on two Supreme Court precedents. In Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha (February 16, 2026), the Supreme Court held that prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to the convict, constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence. In Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291, the Supreme Court deprecated continued incarceration of convicts for long periods during the pendency of appeals, observing that such practice would amount to a travesty of justice.
The bench also noted that appellate jurisdiction is a continuation of the trial, and the entire evidence remains open to re-appreciation. The appellate court may ultimately affirm, modify, or set aside the conviction, or alter the sentence, depending on the outcome of that re-evaluation. Even where conviction is sustained, the nature of the offence or the quantum of sentence may warrant reconsideration, justifying a liberal approach in appropriate cases.
The Medical Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome and Cardiac History
Beyond the merits of the appeal, the bench identified what it described as an additional and exceptionally compelling circumstance: the grave and undisputed medical condition of the appellant.
The record showed that on earlier occasions Kanaram had approached the court by way of applications seeking suspension of sentence. Coordinate benches, while consciously refraining from entering into the merits of the conviction, had repeatedly granted temporary suspension of sentence and interim bail solely on account of a medical emergency. Those benches had considered the medical condition serious enough to warrant repeated temporary releases, while observing that the prayer for regular suspension of sentence would appropriately fall for consideration before the regular roster bench.
The material placed on record, including reports of a Medical Board constituted at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, demonstrated that Kanaram has been suffering from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), specifically the severe AMSAN variant, coupled with serious spinal complications requiring surgical intervention. He underwent major neurosurgical procedures, including laminectomy and discectomy, and thereafter developed significant neurological deficits necessitating prolonged hospitalisation, physiotherapy, supportive care, and continuous medical supervision.
The bench described GBS as a rare but potentially life-threatening neurological disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the peripheral nervous system, progressively impairing the transmission of nerve impulses from the brain and spinal cord to the muscles and vital organs. The consequences, as reflected in the medical literature placed on record, include rapidly advancing muscular weakness, loss of motor functions, sensory deficits, bowel and bladder involvement, partial or complete paralysis of limbs, and, in severe cases, impairment of respiratory functions. Recovery is frequently prolonged, uncertain, and dependent upon sustained rehabilitative care and constant physical assistance.
The Medical Board report recorded significant neurological impairment, diminished motor power, weakness in upper and lower limbs, sensory involvement, and a continuing requirement of physiotherapy and supportive treatment. In addition, the appellant has a history of serious cardiac ailments for which cauterisation procedures were undertaken and two stents were implanted. His blood pressure continues to fluctuate considerably, aggravating an already precarious condition.
The bench noted the history of interim relief: Kanaram was enlarged on interim relief approximately thirteen times during the pendency of the trial and on four occasions after conviction. On no occasion was there any allegation that the liberty so granted was misused. On each occasion he surrendered before the concerned authorities in compliance with the court's orders.
Balancing Criminal Justice with Human Dignity
The bench acknowledged that incarceration follows a valid conviction and that medical ailments alone do not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence. However, it held that constitutional courts cannot remain oblivious to the humanitarian dimension of criminal justice, and that the administration of justice is not divorced from considerations of human dignity.
Where the material demonstrates that a convict is afflicted with a progressive neurological disorder which substantially diminishes his physical capacities and renders him dependent upon continuous care and assistance, the court is required to balance the demands of criminal justice with the constitutional obligation to preserve human dignity.
The bench observed that the question was not merely of medical treatment but also of ensuring a humane and dignified existence during the pendency of the appeal. It held that it was not persuaded that Kanaram should be compelled to remain in circumstances where his physical condition renders him virtually immobile and dependent upon others for his day-to-day existence. The humanitarian concern assumed greater significance because the ailment was of such severity that continued confinement may deprive the appellant of the comfort, emotional support, and constant personal care which only family members can ordinarily provide.
Taking into account the seriousness of the neurological disorder, the previous surgical interventions, the implantation of cardiac stents, the continuing fluctuation in blood pressure, the repeated grants of interim relief on medical grounds by coordinate benches, the absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty, the arguable issues raised in the appeal, and the likelihood that the appeal may not be heard in the immediate future owing to the pendency of old criminal appeals, the bench concluded that the present case constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of discretion under Section 389 CrPC.
The bench held that it would be inconsistent with the humanitarian ethos underlying the constitutional framework to leave a person afflicted with such debilitating ailments to suffer unnecessary agony when appropriate conditions could adequately secure his presence during the pendency of the appeal.
Order
The application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS) was allowed. The sentence passed by the trial court against Kanaram shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the criminal appeal. He is to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.
The conditions imposed are as follows. Kanaram must appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year until the appeal is decided. If he changes his place of residence, he must inform the trial court and his counsel at the High Court in writing of the changed address. Sureties are similarly required to inform the trial court in writing of any change in their addresses.
The trial court is directed to maintain a record of the appellant's attendance in a separate file, to be registered as a Criminal Misc. Case related to the original case. A copy of the order is to be placed in that file for ready reference. The Criminal Misc. file is not to be counted for statistical purposes relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. If Kanaram fails to appear before the trial court, the trial Judge is required to report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.