Suspension of sentence granted due to lack of evidence and maternal relationship to deceased.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

8 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records of trial court have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant seeking suspension of her sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 15.01.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 17.01.2024 by learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.T. No. 390 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). She has been ordered to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. The appellant is in jail in connection with this case since 08.11.2021.

5. The prosecution case is based on the written information furnished by Ranjesh Shahni who is the father of the victim and husband of the present appellant. According to him, when he came from outside in his house on 07.11.2021 at 9:00 P.M., he saw that his wife (appellant) was pressing neck of his son Shekhar Kumar and was saying that she would kill him. He later on found that his son was dead. It is his statement that in the previous evening his wife had a quarrel with him on some household issues and for that reason, she has committed this act.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in course of trial, the informant (PW-6) has turned hostile. In his examination-in-chief he has only said that when he returned his home, he found that his son was kept at the Bathan of his house and his wife was standing there. It is pointed out that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and it is difficult to believe that the appellant who is the mother would kill her own son who was hardly one year and ten months old. It is also pointed out that this case is based on no evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail where she has given birth to another child and the said child is also there for almost four years.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has though opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail but submits that the informant seems to have turned hostile in course of trial and there is no other eyewitness of the occurrence.

8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and the evidences which we have prima facie gone through at this stage for purpose of consideration of the prayer of the appellant, on noticing that the informant has not supported the prosecution case, there is no other eyewitness, moreover, the deceased is nonelse but one year and ten months old son of the appellant and the witnesses have not stated as to why a mother would kill her own son, also noticing that she is in jail for over four years with her four years old child and this appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, we direct suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.T. No. 390 of 2022.

9. Fine, if any, imposed as a part of sentence shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal.

10. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only prima facie and tentative for purpose of consideration of the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail, which would not cause prejudice to either of the parties.

11. List this appeal for hearing on its turn.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)