Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and KHATIM REZA, JJ.
Cri. Appeal (DB) Nos. 645, 571, 581 with 665 of 2019
(4.7.2022)
Hare Ram Mahto
@ Hare Ram Singh (in 645)
Haricharan Mahto (in 571)
Ram Deo Mahto (in 581)
Dharmendra Mahto (in 665) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389(1) – Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Recording of reasons while exercising discretion under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory – Requirement of recording of reasons clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of relevant facts and order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail cannot be passed as a matter of routine – Appellate Court has duty to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for conclusion that case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail – Fact of bail granted during trial loses its significance when, on completion of trial, accused persons are found guilty – Mere fact that during period when accused persons were on bail during trial, there was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail – There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding order of conviction, by suspension of sentence and those strong compelling reasons must be recorded in order granting bail. (Paras 16, 17 and 22)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 – Suspension of sentence and release on bail – As appellants were all along on bail during investigation and at trial and there is no material to demonstrate that they ever misused privilege of bail granted to them, their case for grant of bail and suspension of sentence deserves to be considered favourably – Despite opportunity having been granted to State in terms of proviso to Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., no such written objection has been filed in criminal appeals – No primal role has been attributed to appellants and their conviction is with aid of Section 149 of IPC – Absence of names of appellants in F.I.R. by informant who claims to be an eye witness of occurrence is a significant factor, there being overwhelming evidence on record that informant and accused persons are next door neighbours, well known to each other – Non-examination of rickshaw puller without any cogent explanation, whose evidence would have been crucial for reaching to truth of matter is another significant aspect affecting prosecution's case – Post-mortem report does not corroborate ocular evidence – Prayer made on behalf of appellants for suspension of sentence and their release on bail allowed. (Paras 10, 21, 25 to 29)
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—All these appeals have been placed before us for consideration of the appellants’ prayer for their release on bail upon suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C., during the pendency of these appeals.
2. The same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2019/15.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Rosera (Samastipur) in Sessions Trial No. 688 of 2005 is under challenge in all these criminal appeals. By the aforementioned judgment and order, the appellants stand convicted of the offences punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The State has filed written objection in terms of the first proviso to Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 571 of 2019. However, despite opportunity having been granted to the State, no such written objection has been filed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 581 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2019.
4. We have heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, learned counsel, and Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2019; Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 571 of 2019; Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 581 of 2019; Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2019; Kumari Sashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 645 of 2019; Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 571 of 2019; Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 581 of 2019; and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 665 of 2019.
5. In the light of rival submissions advanced at the bar we have considered it apt to briefly narrate at the outset, prosecution’s case as disclosed in the FIR, before considering the said submissions.
6. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6:00 a.m. on 05.05.2005, as mentioned in the fardbayan of the infromant Sita Devi, based on which, the F.I.R. i.e. Rosera P.S. Case No. 44 of 2005 came to be registered. The informant disclosed in her fardbayan recorded by the police officer at 8:15 a.m. at the Sub-Divisional Sadar Hospital, Rosera that, when they were about to proceed for Rosera in a Rickshaw in front of their house, the accused Dharamchand Mahto suddenly came and started abusing. She further alleged that Ram Charitra Mahto, Haricharan Mahto, Ram Deo Mahto, Bade Lal Mahto, Dharmendra Mahto, Jitendra Kumar, Bharat Mahto, Sri Narayan Mahto, Jai Kumar Mahto, and ten others, whose names she did not know came there, carrying brickbats and acid. They pulled down the informant and her son Ram Ratan Das from Rickshaw. She further alleged that Ram Charitra Mahto threw acid on the body of the said Ram Ratan Das (deceased) who sustained injuries. In the meanwhile, when her son Manoj Das and nephew Vishwanath Das came to rescue, they were also assaulted with brickbats and acid was thrown upon them too. The informant’s dauther-in-law had also rushed to the place of occurrence to rescue who too was attacked with brickbats and acid. Police came in the meanwhile and all injured were taken to hospital for treatment. Vishwanath Das died on the spot whereas the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law were undergoing treatment at the time when her fardbayan was recorded. The names of such persons who had participated in the commission of the offence but not named in the FIR would be disclosed by her son and the daughter in law who wer
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.
Suspending a sentence for a serious offence like murder requires a rare demonstration of exceptional circumstances, without re-evaluating evidence during bail applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the discretion to suspend the sentence of the Appellants during the pendency of the appeals, considering the principles laid dow....
A court should generally suspend a fixed-term sentence pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
The court reaffirmed that the discretionary power to suspend a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. requires a prima facie case and consideration of the gravity of the offense.
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 ....
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
