Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Dhan Jee Pandey – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1864 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2025] With Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12906 of 2025]
Decided On : 10-04-2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 [Section 430 of BNSS] – Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Case registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 – Respondent No. 2 is a life convict – Parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at stage of pre-trial bail – Upon conviction, presumption of innocence stands displaced by a judicial determination of guilt, and appellate court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 389 Cr.P.C. with due circumspection and restraint – Suspension of sentence in serious offences must not be granted as a matter of routine – Appellate court is not expected to undertake a reappreciation of evidence or delve into a detailed evaluation of prosecution case – Such relief can be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances and reappreciation of evidence at stage of Section 389 Cr.P.C. is impermissible – Prosecution case is founded on ocular evidence, which has been duly appreciated and accepted by Trial Court – Respondent No. 2 has criminal antecedents and he allegedly attempted to intimidate appellant by issuing threats and initiating false cases – Without considering the same in a proper perspective, High Court erred in granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 and released him on bail – Impugned order granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 set aside. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 25)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 [Section 3(5) of BSA] – Common intention – Doctrine of constructive liability under Section 34 IPC is well settled – Where an offence is committed in furtherance of a common intention, each participant is equally liable for act done in execution thereof – Absence of a specific overt act cannot, at this stage, dilute culpability of convict, particularly in face of a finding of common intention. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant / informant challenging judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1180 of 2018, whereby, High Court, during pendency of appeal, suspended sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Respondent No. 2, and released him on bail. The issue that arises for consideration herein is whether order granting suspension of sentence to Respondent No. 2 calls for interference.
Findings of Court:
Bail bond furnished by Respondent No. 2 stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender before concerned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted in both the cases.
Criminal Appeal No.1864/2026 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2025
2. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant / informant challenging the judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1180 of 2018, whereby, the High Court, during the pendency of the appeal, suspended the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Respondent No. 2, Shekhar Pandey @ Shekhar Suman Pandey @ Sintu Pandey @ Situ and released him on bail.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of the written information (fardbayan) of the appellant / informant, namely Dhan Jee Pandey, P. S. Case No. Buxar (I) 4 of 2016 dated 04.01.2016 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[For short, “IPC”] and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against Respondent No. 2 and other accused persons. It is alleged that on 04.01.2016 at about 04.15 p.m., the appellant, along with his elder brother (deceased), Ramashankar Pandey @ Jhamman Pandey, was proceeding towards his village on a motorcycle. On the way, they stopped at a betel shop located at the village chatti. At that time, the appellant’s father-in-law, Mukteshwar Mishra, also arrived and engaged in conversation with the appellant at a short distance from the shop. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons reached the spot and began abusing the deceased. Immediately thereafter, two accused persons, namely Shiv Jee Pandey and Ghanshyam Pandey, caught hold of the deceased, while the others took out firearms. Shiv Jee Pandey then fired a gunshot at the head of the deceased, causing fatal injuries. The other accused persons also fired at the appellant, who narrowly escaped. Thereafter, all the accused fled the scene on motorcycles. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot.
4. After trial, the Court of the Additional District Judge II-cum-Special Judge (Excise), Buxar3[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”], by judgment dated 18.08.2018 in S.T.R. No. 265 of 2016, convicted Respondent No. 2 along with other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. By order dated 23.08.2018, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine under Section 302/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307/34 IPC; and life imprisonment under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act.
5. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1180 of 2018 before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court, by the impugned order dated 22.11.2024, suspended the sentence and released Respondent No. 2 on bail. Seeking cancellation of the said relief, the present appeal has been filed by the informant.
6. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant advanced the following submissions:
(ii) It was submitted that once Respondent No. 2 stands convicted for a serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the presumption of innocence no longer survives, and therefore, the grant of suspension of sentence ought to be an exception rather than the rule.
(iii) The prosecution case rests on cogent and reliable ocular evidence. The trial Court, upon due appreciation of the evidence, relied upon the testimonies of PW-1 (Mukteshwar Mishra), PW-2 (Shyam Bihari Yadav) and PW-5 (the appellant), all of whom consistently deposed that the accused persons including Respondent No. 2 caught hold of the deceased while co-accused Shiv Jee Pandey fired the fatal shot.
(iv) In light of such consistent and credible eyewitness t
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Parameters governing suspension of sentence post-conviction are qualitatively distinct from those applicable at stage of pre-trial bail – Such relief can ....
(1) Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction – Once accused is held guilty, presumption of innocence....
Suspending a sentence for a serious offence like murder requires a rare demonstration of exceptional circumstances, without re-evaluating evidence during bail applications.
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted only in exceptional cases more particularly so in cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC.
A court should generally suspend a fixed-term sentence pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
Suspension of sentence during appeal requires assessment of prima facie merits and exceptional circumstances, balancing incarceration duration against the nature of the conviction.
The serving of half of the sentence does not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence.
The court held that the discretion to suspend a sentence post-conviction must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offence and the likelihood of appeal success.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
