Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2276
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Biren Pramanik @ Birendra Pramanik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1234 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Ojha, APP
The court's decision emphasized that prior rejection of suspension of sentence stands unless fresh grounds are presented.
Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 363 and 370 - Conviction of the appellant under offenses of kidnapping and trafficking - Appellant sentenced to R.I. for a combined period of 21 years - Court denied recent suspension of sentence, previously rejected on grounds of substantive witness testimony. (Paras 1, 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 389(1) - Guidelines for suspension of sentence clarified; previous orders should not be re-examined without new grounds. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted to R.I. total of 21 years relating to the trafficking and kidnapping of two victims; the testimony of the victims was pivotal in establishing the case against him.
Findings of Court:
Rejection of the suspension application upheld as prior grounds for the appeal were insufficient; no new evidence was presented.
Issues: Court addressed whether the testimony of other witnesses could be revisited post-rejection of the suspension of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that without new arguments or evidence, re-examining previously ruled matters is improper.
Result: I.A. No. 4482 of 2025 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suspension of sentence application dismissed. (Para 1 , 14 , 20) |
| 2. revisit of previously ruled orders without new grounds is improper. (Para 2 , 18) |
| 3. victim testimonials are crucial for conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. B.N. Ojha, APP ------
Order No.09/Dated:11th August, 2025 I.A. No. 4482 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1)
of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pakur in connection with Sessions Trial No.43 of 2021 arising out of Pakur Malpahari O.P. P.S Case No.194 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 and 370 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 363 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 370 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I for six months and all the sentences shall run concurrently. It is further ordered that the period already undergone shall be set off in accordance with law.
2. At the outset, it needs to mention here that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant/applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed in I.A No.6528 of 2023.
3. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant that earlier while rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant vide order dated 19.02.2024, proper consideration has not been made by this Court since the testimony of the witnesses, particularly, PW6 has not been taken into consideration by this Court.
4. While, on the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-
State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that earlier this Court has rejected the prayer of suspension of sentence of the appellant by a detailed order vide order dated 19.02.2024.
5. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the consideration has been given by this Court after going through the testimony of PW3 and PW4, the victims, who have specifically attributed the attributability committed by the present appellant. It has also been contended that their statement has also been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C which has been corroborated by the victim, i.e., PW3 and PW4.
6. So far as the testimony of PW6 is concerned, it has been submitted that PW6 has stated that he has informed the police that both the victims have been carried away by one Vipat Mandal for the purpose of work at Ghaziabad.
7. It has contended that it is not evident from the evidence as to the trafficking of PW3 and PW4 was with the permission of their guardian and, as such, the testimony of PW3 and PW4 as has been taken into consideration by this Court which was the basis for earlier rejection of prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant. Moreover, a submission has been made that once the prayer for suspension of sentence has already been rejected and, as such, it is not available for the appellant/applicant to renew the prayer again insisting the Court to go into the merit without assailing the said order before the higher Forum.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the prayer for suspension of the appellant/applicant has been dealt with by this Court while considering the interlocutory application being I.A No.6528 of 2023 filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P
