'Greater issue of public health, national interest': Uttarakhand High Court suspends conviction of vaccine scientist

On January 21 this year, the sessions judge of Rudrapur sentenced him to five-year RI and a fine of Rs 20,000 under Section 306.

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently suspended the conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment of a vaccine scientist found guilty of abetment to suicide following the death of his wife in 2015.

According to a report by Times of India, Justice Ravindra Maithani granted the relief to Dr Akash Yadav during the pendency of his appeal, saying his role was "undoubtedly essential for public health and national interest".

“What is stated in the instant case is that the appellant is a Scientist, who is into the research work of vaccine development, and due to his conviction, he is not allowed to join his duties, which, otherwise, is also greater issue of public health and national interest,” Justice Ravindra said.

The appellant was accused under Section 304-B of IPC read with Sections 3 (penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the alleged dowry death of his wife. Though he was acquitted of the aforesaid charges, he was held guilty under Section 306 of IPC for abatement to suicide of his wife, according to Livelaw.

Yadav is a scientist with a PhD in Biotechnology from IIT Kharagpur, and for the last three years, he has been serving as a Senior Manager at Indian Immunologicals Limited, a reputed vaccine manufacturer.

On January 21 this year, the sessions judge of Rudrapur sentenced him to five-year RI and a fine of Rs 20,000 under Section 306.

After being granted bail, Yadav filed an interim application under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking suspension of his conviction. He submitted that because of the conviction, he had become disqualified from working with his firm and was unable to resume his scientific duties.

The TOI report stated that Yadav’s counsel argued that the case met the criteria for exceptional circumstances, as the conviction had a direct impact on "work of national importance."

Justice Maithani noted that an appellate court can suspend a conviction if failure to do so would result in injustice or irreversible consequences.

He cited the Supreme Court rulings in Navjot Singh Sidhu vs State of Punjab (2007) and Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang (1995) and said that courts must examine whether maintaining the conviction would unfairly affect a person's professional standing or public interest responsibilities.The bench observed,

"This was a greater issue of public health and national interest. In light of the afore-stated reasons, the court was of the view that this was a fit case in which the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, should be suspended,” the court said as quoted by TOI.

The high court suspended both the conviction and sentence during the appeal's pendency, allowing Yadav to resume his duties at IIL.