JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted in all the matters.

2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in Criminal Appeal No.10286 of 2023 and orders dated 10.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos.10455 of 2023 & 10286 of 2023 respectively, whereby the High Court has allowed the applications of the respondents - accused seeking suspension of sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC, pending the said Appeals.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. It appears that all the three respondents accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC and were directed by the Trial Court, i.e., Ist ASJ to the Court of IInd ASJ, Datia in S.T. No.103 of 2018, to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 and undergo other punishments as imposed by the Trial Court. It appears that the cross-case being S.T. No.28 of 2007 filed by the respondents - accused against the complainant, had also resulted into the conviction of the complainant and others for the offence under Sections 307 /149, 324/149, 148 IPC.

5. Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the respondents - accused, they have preferred the appeals before the High Court, in which they also applied for the suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. The said applications have been allowed by the High Court.

6. As transpiring from the impugned orders passed by the High Court, it ex facie appears that the High Court has not assigned any reasons while granting the applications seeking suspension of sentence, though it is mandatory under Section 389 (1) to record the reasons before suspending the sentence of the respondents -accused, who have been convicted for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is also needless to say that the initial presumption of innocence is no more available to the respondents - accused, who have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC.

7. In our opinion, the decision of this Court in the case of " Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. , (2023) 6 SCC 123 " clinches the issue involved in the present appeals. It has been observed while considering the scope of Section 389 of Cr.P.C as under:-

"30. In Kishori Lal vs. Rupa [Kishori Lal vs. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638], this Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the courts while granting benefit under Section 389 CrPC in cases involving serious offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the observations made therein, which are as follows : (SCC pp. 639-40, paras 4-6)

"4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.

5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the insta