Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Krishna Karmali @ Manijar Karmali, Son Of Shiv Shankar Karmali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 254 of 2025 :
1. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor, at the outset, has submitted that the counter affidavit is ready but the same could not have been filed, as such, leave has sought for to file the same in the Court.
2. Considering the said prayer, the said counter affidavit is taken on record.
3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC-Special Judge, Ramgarh in S.T. Case No.102 of 2016 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana O.P.) P.S. Case no. 267 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4473 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with fine of Rs.10,000 for the offence under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that solely on the ground of period of custody, i.e., 09 years 01 month and 12 days (actual c
The court recognized that an appellant's significant duration of custody can justify the suspension of sentence in light of delays in appeal proceedings.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304(B) IPC, emphasizing that the absence of new grounds and insufficient custody period do not justify suspension of sentence.
Evidence of a prolonged relationship can influence the decision for suspending a sentence under IPC provisions, particularly where the victim's testimony supports the defense.
The court maintained that a convicted individual could be granted bail during appeal based on parity with co-defendants, while still upholding the conviction until the appeal is resolved.
The court ruled that consistent witness testimony across related trials can justify bail suspension during appeal, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.
The court may suspend a sentence if the accused are on bail and the appeal process is expected to take a significant amount of time.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
The court upheld the conviction for gang rape based on credible victim testimony, ruling that contradictions and co-accused acquittals do not automatically justify sentence suspension.
The court has the discretion to suspend substantive sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. based on the arguments and facts of the case.
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
