Uttarakhand High Court Stays Vaccinologist's Conviction In Abetment Of Suicide Case Citing 'Greater Issue Of Public Health'

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently suspended/stayed the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence against a Vaccine Scientist held guilty by the trial Court for abatement of suicide of his wife.

While accepting the argument that stay of conviction is in the interest of larger public health, the Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani observed –

“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.”

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.

He was previously granted bail by the High Court and execution of sentence imposed on him was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Another interim application was filed seeking suspension/stay of conviction. It was submitted that the appellant, being a distinguished Scientist, is associated with vaccine research and development which is critical for public health. However, he has been restrained from working on vaccine development due to the conviction.

The Court summarized the underlying principle governing suspension of order of conviction and execution of sentence. It referred to the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors. (1995) wherein it was held that in a fit case if the High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted person does not suffer from a certain disqualification provided for in any other statute, it may exercise the power because otherwise the damage done cannot be undone.

Reliance was also placed upon Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2007) which held that grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.

In the instant case, the Court gave due weightage to the fact that the appellant is involved in vaccine research and development which is argued not only critical for public health but also of national interest.

“The order of conviction as well as execution of sentence, appealed against, shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal,” it accordingly ordered.

Case Title: Akash Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

Case No: IA No. 02 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. V.S. Rawat, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order