IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.264 of 2017 -----

Dhodho Kachhap, S/o Late Heta Kachap, R/o Village Badam, Kadamtoli, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilway, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … Appellant(s).

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent(s).

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate For the State : None …......

11 /19.02.2026: I.A. No.15443 of 2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with in S.T. No.526 of 2014, arising out of Tatisilwai P.S. Case No.44 of 2014, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed.

5. This is fifth attempt of the appellant praying for suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this appeal. The ground of the appellant is that he is in custody since 04.06.2014. Further, it has been argued that the conviction is based on the deposition of the sole eye-witness, PW-6, but PW-6 cannot be relied on the ground that in the F.I.R. he stated that this appellant had committed murder by stabbing his father by knife along with another person, but while deposing, he has not whispered about the second person.

6. This is an application for suspension of sentence and releasing the appellant on bail.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3062 has held in paragraph 16 that while dealing with suspension of sentence of life imprisonment the only consideration should be whether the convict is in a position to point out something very palpable or there is a very gross error in the judgment of Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make a good case and, on that ground, alone he be acquitted.

It is necessary to quote paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

16. What could be those exceptional circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those exceptional circumstances as may be pointed out by the State. However, the only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point out something very palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.

In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.17 has held that the High Court unfortunately did not take into consideration the aforesaid principle governing suspension of substance order of sentence of life imprisonment.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jamnalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.”, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1641, relying upon the judgement of “Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123” has reiterated the aforesaid principle. Several paragraphs of the judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) was extensively quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment. We are inclined to quote paragraph 33 of the judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) which is as below:-

33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquitta