After four months in jail, teacher convicted of Sarpanch candidate murder plot goes back inside

Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran cancel the suspension of one life sentence, spare co-convicts whose witnesses turned hostile, and warn against release merely because appeals are pending.

The Supreme Court on 27 October 2026 cancelled the High Court’s suspension of a life sentence for a government teacher convicted of masterminding the murder of a man standing for Sarpanch. The teacher must surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

A bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran left undisturbed the suspended sentences of the other convicts, who were given 10 years for conspiracy. It found the evidence against them thin on the points the prosecution had relied on.

The bench also cautioned courts against releasing people convicted of heinous offences simply because their appeals will not be heard soon (paras 11 to 15).

A murder over a by-election

The order describes the crime as arising from political rivalry. The deceased and the first accused, referred to as A1, a government teacher, belonged to rival factions. A1’s son had been elected Sarpanch but had to vacate the office when he got a government job.

The deceased stood in the resulting by-election, which enraged A1. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy was hatched and A1 kept aloof on purpose. At his instigation, A6, who had been in jail with A7, planned the killing, and it was carried out through A11 and A12 (para 2).

A1 was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and given life imprisonment. The other accused before the Court were convicted under Section 120B and given 10 years each (para 3).

Why the High Court suspended the sentences

The High Court suspended the sentences of the convicts who are respondents in the appeal. The main reason, the order records, was that many criminal appeals were pending before it and none could be disposed of in the near future (para 4).

The first informant, the father of the deceased, challenged that order. He said the High Court had misread the evidence and granted relief cursorily (para 4).

Mr. Rishi Matoliya appeared for the father. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia appeared for the State, Mr. Abhishek Gupta for A1, and Mr. Vikas Verma for A2, A8 and A10 (para 5).

Threats in the Returning Officer’s office

The bench noted that A1 was not at the scene, which is fairly admitted. Even so, it said, witnesses spoke of the rivalry and of A1 making open threats in the office of the SDM, who was the Returning Officer, that the deceased would not be alive till the election (paras 6 and 7).

The High Court had found that the father admitted he had not mentioned his son’s report of the threat in the First Information Statement or his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench said it saw no such finding in the Trial Court’s judgment (para 7).

In any case, the bench said, other witnesses who were present had given credible testimony that the candidate would be killed. It also noted that A6, who is said to have arranged the assailants through gang-leader A7, is still absconding, although A7 was acquitted (para 7).

The bench relied on one more fact. PW40, an Assistant Commissioner, said that on the day of the crime A1 was at the police station, without notice or provocation, with another person who had also not been summoned. The Trial Court read this as a deliberate attempt to create an alibi (para 8).

On a prima facie view, given the threats and the alleged motive, the bench held that the High Court erred in suspending A1’s sentence (para 8).

Why the co-convicts kept their relief

The case against the others, the order says, was that the number plate of the getaway vehicle was changed, rooms were booked and SIM cards were obtained, all to help the perpetrators on A1’s command (para 9).

The bench read the conviction judgment and found each strand weak. PW8 and PW44, who were to prove the number plate change, turned hostile. PW12, PW13 and PW27 were offered to prove a room booking, but did not identify the actual perpetrators. PW66, PW67 and PW68, who were to prove the SIM card purchases, also turned hostile (para 9).

The bench saw no reason to interfere with the suspension of sentence granted to them (para 10).

Pendency is no ground for release

The bench said this Court has repeatedly cautioned against releasing people convicted of heinous offences on the ground that the appeal cannot be heard soon. Whatever the cause of the backlog, it said, courts cannot be complacent about it, because release in such cases puts civil society at risk (para 12).

The appeal had alleged that A1 spent not a single day in custody. The bench was told he had served four months and eighteen days, and had been on bail throughout (para 13).

It also noted that in some cases a trial has run for a decade and an appeal has then waited another decade while the accused sat in custody. Its point, it said, was circumspection in granting bail to people convicted of heinous crimes (para 14).

That call, the bench said, must rest on a prima facie look at the evidence. If the evidence is compelling, the court must weigh the actual incarceration suffered against the reality of long pendency. It said the release “cannot be a knee jerk reaction to the pendency” (para 14).

Courts should also be sensitive to the victim’s family, the bench said, especially when the accused no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. It recorded that the father must watch the man convicted of his son’s murder walk free while judges grapple with pendency (para 14).

For A1, the FIR dates from 2017, and he had been in custody only briefly during the trial. The bench found him prima facie convicted on sufficient evidence, so pendency and the chance of an early hearing could not justify suspension (para 15).

Order

The Supreme Court granted leave and partly allowed the appeals. It cancelled the suspension of A1’s sentence and directed him to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks, failing which proceedings will be taken to apprehend him (paras 1, 11 and 16).

It made no change to the suspension granted to the other accused. It said its observations on A1’s guilt and on the evidence against the others are only prima facie and will not regulate the High Court’s decision on the appeals. Pending applications were rejected (paras 15 and 17).