CASE TITLE: Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar & Anr. 2025

Appellant: Sunita Devi

Respondent: State of Bihar 

Judgment Date: May 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti
Relevant Citation: 2024 INSC 448
Legal Provisions Involved: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.

Introduction

The case of Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar (2024) deals with the alleged custodial abuse of Sunita Devi by the Bihar police. Sunita Devi, the petitioner, accused law enforcement officers of subjecting her to physical and mental abuse while in custody. The case highlighted broader systemic flaws in how police custody cases are handled, drawing attention to the lack of safeguards for individuals in custody.

The initial trial faced significant criticism for procedural shortcomings, such as insufficient time for the accused to prepare a defense. The court imposed a death penalty following a rushed process that did not comply with essential legal procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Specifically, the High Court noted that crucial sections—such as 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the CrPC—were not followed, leading to the overturning of the conviction and sentencing, and ordering a retrial.

The Supreme Court also played a critical role by stressing the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy, arguing that sentencing should not be influenced solely by the personal views of a judge, but should follow clear guidelines to ensure fairness and consistency in justice. This case is a landmark for urging reforms in both custodial safeguards and sentencing procedures.

Facts of the Case

The Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar Supreme Court case of 2024 arose from a highly sensitive legal matter that involved accusations of custodial abuse and the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

A complaint was lodged against the accused on 2^nd December 2021 by the victim’s mother accusing the accused of taking advantage of her daughter and committing the offense of rape. The crime occurred on 1^st December 2021 and the case was registered under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused was arrested on 12^th December 2021 and was put under Judicial custody until 24^th December 2021. The remand was further extended by the orders dated 24^th December.2021 and 05^th January 2022 through video conferencing. A chargesheet was filed on 12^th January 2021.

An application was filed by the Investigating Officer to record the testimony of four witnesses in a single day, citing confidential information about familial pressure on the witnesses. This application was processed without notifying the accused or his counsel and without adhering to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, or the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020. On 24^th January 2022, the remaining witnesses including the investigating Officer were examined.

On 27^th January 2022, the court imposed the death penalty on the accused. The High Court upon review found that there was no compliance by the trial with sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the CrPC, and overturned the conviction and sentence, ordering a retrial.

A criminal appeal was filed by the appellant and the learned trial court judge challenging the High Court’s order for a retrial.

The counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned trial court judge argued that the procedure established by the law was duly followed. The appellant has considered Section 309 of the CrPC, 1973 read with the provisions contained under the POCSO Act, 2012. They argued that considering the directive path outlined in Section 465 of the CrPC, there is no need for a retrial.

The counsel appearing for the accused and the High Court argued that the judgments given by the trial court judge were presented hastily. The accused at every stage of the trial was not given the right amount of opportunity to defend himself. The counsel also argued that it is impractical to give a judgment in such a short period.

The court ordered the trial court to conduct a retrial by following the mandates under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the need for a balanced and fair judicial process. The trial court shall conduct and complete the trial expeditiously given Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court also asked the Government of India to consider a comprehensive sentencing policy and report within 6 months of the judgment.

Appellant’s Arguments

Several key issues were raised before the Supreme Court were:

1. Procedural Fairness: The accused argued that the trial court did not follow proper procedure as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Key sections such as 207, 226, 227, and 230, which ensure fair trial rights, were not adhered to. This raised questions about whether the accused received a fair opportunity to present a defense​.
2. Rushed Judgment and Sentencing: The trial court completed the trial and passed judgment in a single day. The sentencing hearing followed just two days later, culminating in the death penalty for the accused. The Supreme Court expressed concern over this expedited process, emphasizing the need for sufficient time to ensure proper legal representation and defense preparation​.
3. Sentencing Policy: A critical issue was the lack of a comprehensive sentencing policy in India. The Supreme Court highlighted that sentencing should not be judge-centric, which can lead to inconsistencies. The Court urged the Central Government to consider formulating clear guidelines to ensure uniformity and fairness in sentencing decisions​.
4. Custodial Abuse: The case also brought attention to the alleged abuse and mistreatment of the petitioner while in police custody, raising broader concerns about human rights violations within the law enforcement system.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents (the State of Bihar and others) presented several key arguments in the Supreme Court:

1. Procedural Compliance: The respondents contended that the trial court had followed due legal procedure while conducting the trial. They argued that the necessary provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were adhered to during the proceedings, and there was no need for a retrial. They cited compliance with Section 309 of the CrPC, which permits speedy trials under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012​.
2. Opposition to Retrial: The respondents challenged the High Court’s order for a de novo (fresh) trial, arguing that the trial court judge had not made any procedural errors that would warrant a retrial. They maintained that the conviction and sentencing were issued based on the evidence presented, and the appellate court should not intervene in this matter​.
3. Sentencing Process Defense: The respondents defended the swift sentencing process, arguing that the sentence was based on the gravity of the offense and the evidence produced during the trial. They highlighted the urgency of delivering justice under the POCSO Act, which mandates an expedited trial and sentencing process to protect vulnerable victims​.

However, the Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, criticized the rushed judgment and the lack of sufficient time for the defense to prepare, ultimately upholding the High Court’s decision to order a re-trial​.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Patna High Court, which had ordered a retrial due to significant procedural irregularities in the original trial. The trial court had previously sentenced the accused to the death penalty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, following a rushed trial that did not adhere to essential legal procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The Apex Court observed the concept of intuitive sentencing is against the rule of law. In that context, the Court further said that, “A judge can never have unrestrictive and unbridled discretion, based upon his conscience formed through his understanding of the society, without there being any guidelines in awarding a sentence. The need for adequate guidelines for exercising sentencing discretion, avoiding unwanted disparity, is of utmost importance.”

The Supreme Court found that the accused had not been given adequate opportunity to prepare a defense, and key CrPC sections (207, 226, 227, and 230) were violated. Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy, arguing that sentencing should not be judge-centric but rather based on clear guidelines. The Court directed the government to consider creating a more structured sentencing policy to avoid arbitrary decisions and ensure consistency in sentencing​.

Conclusion

In the landmark case of Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar and Anr., the legal landscape witnessed a significant shift. The case revolved around allegations of custodial violence and abuse, highlighting systemic flaws within law enforcement agencies. Sunita Devi, the petitioner, bravely stood against the State of Bihar and other respondents, seeking justice for the brutal treatment she endured while in custody. With the aid of dedicated criminal lawyers, she meticulously presented evidence of her mistreatment, sparking national outrage and shedding light on the urgent need for judicial reform. The verdict not only held the perpetrators accountable but also set a crucial precedent for safeguarding the rights of individuals in police custody. Sunita Devi’s case serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of legal advocacy in upholding justice and protecting human rights.