[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2024
------
Kamal Sahu, aged about 27 years, son of Surendra Sahu, resident of village-
Parhi, PO- Haphu, PS: Kamdara, District- Gumla. ... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
------
Order No.07/Date: 15.12.2025
I.A. No. 14033 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
appellant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal
in connection with impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.2.2024 and
order of sentence dated 28.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Spl. Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 129 of 2022, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment
for two years and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 201 of the Indian Penal
Code and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year and both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier I.A. No. 12625 of 2024 has
been filed on behalf of the appellant for grant of bail which was dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 17.3.2025 passed by this court.
Factual Matrix
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to the present Criminal
Appeal are on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely Vikram Sahu
wherein it is stated that on 26.3.2021 his sister got married with the
appellant and went to village Parhi and started residing happily. Prior to one
week of the fardbeyan his sister namely Tara Devi suddenly came o her
house at Nawatoli and disclosed that her husband badly assaulted her since
she kept Rs. 200/- from his pocket and he started identifying her as thief,
abused her using filthy languages, assaulted and threatened to kill her.
4. Thereafter, the appellant came to his home on 27.11.2021 and told to
take his wife with him. However, on 28.11.2021 around 08:00 a.m. they
went together to Parahi. On the same evening around 08:00 p.m. wife of
informant made a call to the appellant and requested him for arranging talk
with Tara Devi but he said that she has gone to sleep. On 29.11.2021 around
14:00 hours information of death of his sister was received, then the
informant with his entire family went to the house of his sister at Parahi
where he noticed that the neck of his sister is tied with a saree its another
side was tied in a wooden log and when he went near his sister he noticed
severe injuries near her left eye and it was mark of oozing. There was mark
of injury near her lips, mouth was opened and within a few minutes police
officials arrived. Thereafter the dead body was taken out and it was further
noticed that her neck was throttle from its front portion with black mark of
injury.
5. On the basis of aforesaid written report of the informant Kamdara PS
Case No. 52 of 2021 dated 29.11.2021 under sections 302/201 of the Indian
Penal Code was registered against the appellant. On completion of
investigation charge-sheet no. 02 of 2022 dated 14.1.2022 was submitted by
the Investigating Officer under sections 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code
against the appellant and on 17.1.2022 the cognizance of the offence was
taken and case was committed to the court of sessions for trial and disposal.
6. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant was found
guilty by the learned trial court and accordingly, has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine,
rigorous imprisonment for two years and further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under
section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and in default further rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant for
suspension of aforesaid sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant:
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised the following points
for consideration of the prayer made on behalf of the applicant:
(i) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no
direct evidence proving the murder of the deceased. Even no
circumstantial evidence could be brought on record to suggest
involvement of the appellant in commission of alleged murder and,
therefore, it is a case of suicide which cannot be ruled out.
(ii) He has further submitted that the prosecution has examined 11
witnesses out of which PW-1 and PW-2 became hostile. PW-6 is doctor
and PW-11 is the Investigating officer of the case. He has further
submitted that PW3 and PW-4 are hearsay witnesses.
(iii) He has further stated that PW-5, the wife of informant, has stated
that she was informed that the deceased hanged herself. They took out
the dead body from the wooden log with which the deceased was
hanging and therefrom they suspected the hands of the appellant in the
alleged offence.
(iv) It is further stated that PW-6, the doctor, found the mark of abrasion
on the frontal side of neck and one hematoma on left shoulder. The
cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling of neck. The postmortem
report is Ext.-3. The doctor has stated that no cut injury was found on
the lips and she did not find any bleeding injury from nose and also no
any ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.
(v) It is further stated that the appellant remained in custody since very
inception and by now he completed a substantial period in custody. He
has further stated that since there is hardly any chance of early
conclusion of trial in near future, therefore, the prayer for suspension of
sentence made by the appellant may be considered.
Arguments advanced by the learned State counsel:
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State while defending the
impugned judgment has taken following points:
(i) The learned counsel for the State has submitted that prosecution has
been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the witnesses
examined on behalf of prosecution have fully supported the case,
identified the accused present in the dock.
(ii)He has further stated that the informant was in impression that his
sister will reside happily in her matrimonial home with her husband but
the accused started torturing her even on very petty issues and he started
alleging her thief when she took Rs. 200/- from his pocket for family
affairs and badly assaulted her, whereupon she felt very ugly went to her
natal home without any information, where from the accused taken her
home and killed her by throttling and with intention to disappear the
evidence and screen himself from punishment, he moved away with his
vehicle by hanging her dead body with wooden log.
(iii) He has further argued that multiple injuries were reported during
postmortem by the Doctor who conducted autopsy upon the dead body
of deceased, which is apparent from the postmortem report. He further
argued that the Doctor has especially mentioned injuries upon the
person of deceased, which were ante-mortem in nature. It is also
submitted that the doctor in paragraph 17 of his deposition has disclosed
that all fingers or both hands appears to have been used in the above-
mentioned throttling.
(iv)It is further stated that after filing of FIR by the family members of
deceased, the accused was apprehended by the police and during
interrogation he disclosed that he killed the deceased.
(v) Learned counsel for the respondent/state, on the aforesaid premise,
has submitted that alleged offence fully made out against the applicant
and therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence, as such, the
present interlocutory application may be rejected.
Analysis:
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the impugned judgment and the evidences available on record.
11. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it needs to refer herein the
settled position of law that there is difference between grant of bail in case of pre-
trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there
may be presumption of innocence, however, in case of post-conviction bail, by
suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the
question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Further the Court while
considering an application for suspension of sentence is to consider only the
prima facie merits of the appeal.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P.,
(2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed that there is difference between grant of bail in
case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier
case, there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-conviction bail, by
suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the
question of presumption of innocence does not arise. For ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC
in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence under Section
389 CrPC and grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there may
be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is
an exception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.
[Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri)
675] However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation
of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption
of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and
jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the
court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with
other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail,
notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and
this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting
bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC."
13. Further it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Janardan Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. ETC. (Cr. Appeal Nos.
1892-1893 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 18326-18327 of 2024) while
placing reliance upon another reported decision rendered in the case of Om
Prakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr., reported in (2023) 6
SCC 123 has observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
"6. In our opinion, the decision of this Court in the case of Om Prakash
Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. (2023) 6 SCC 123 clinches
the issue involved in the present appeals. It has been observed while
considering the scope of Section 389 of Cr.P.C as under.:-
"30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa [Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638],
this Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the
courts while granting benefit under Section 389 CrPC in cases involving
serious offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the
observations made therein, which are as follows : (SCC pp. 639-40,
paras 4-6)
4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of
sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail.
There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of
the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the
appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension
of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in
confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or
on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing
clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and
grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine.
5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter
and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants
suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant
case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High
Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the
absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period
when the accused-respondents were on bail.
6. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there
was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really not of much
significance. The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance
when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found
guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the 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.
What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is
whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and
thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the
in view.
31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9
SCC 364] and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v.
Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366], it was held by this Court that
in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be
granted. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002)
9 SCC 364], it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case
involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302
IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of
accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is
alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the
desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been
convicted for committing the serious offence of murder.
32. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this Court in Vasant Tukaram
Pawar v. State oMaharashtra [Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281] and Gomti v. Thakurdas [Gomti v.
Thakurdas, (2007) 11 SCC 160].
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
acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the
affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if
ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the
hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty
long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long
for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be
looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something
which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of
which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the
conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to
pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the
prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach."
7. Having regard to the aforestated settled legal position, we are of the
opinion that the High Court has committed gross error in appreciating
the evidence already appreciated by the Trial Court at the time of
considering the applications seeking suspension of sentence pending the
appeal. Since this was a case of conviction under Section 302 IPC, the
initial presumption available to the accused before conviction, would not
be available to him. The High Court could not have suspended the
sentence, reappreciating the evidence at the stage of Section 389 and
trying to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of
prosecution. The consideration of High Court to the submission made
on behalf of the accused that he had not misused the liberty during the
trial or that the appeal was not likely to be heard in near future, could
not be said to be the proper consideration for suspending the sentence
of the accused, who have been convicted for the serious offence under
Section 302, IPC. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances, the
benefit of suspension of sentence should be granted by the appellate
court to the accused convicted for the serious offence under Section
302, IPC."
14. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court has
categorically observed that since after conviction, the initial presumption
available to the accused before conviction, would not be available to him,
therefore the High Court could not have suspended the sentence, reappreciating
the evidence at the stage of Section 389 and trying to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution.
15. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
consideration of High Court to the submission made on behalf of the accused that
he had not misused the liberty during the trial or that the appeal was not likely to
be heard in near future, could not be said to be the proper consideration for
suspending the sentence of the accused, who have been convicted for the serious
offence under Section 302, IPC and it is only in rare and exceptional
circumstances, the benefit of suspension of sentence should be granted by the
appellate court to the accused convicted for the serious offence under Section
302, IPC.
16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court is
now adverting to the impugned order, wherefrom it is evident that herein the
applicant/accused has also been convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
17. It appears that the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 11
witnesses. Out of which PW-1 and PW-2 declared hostile. PW-3, PW-4, PW-8,
PW-9 and PW-10 are hearsay witnesses.
18. The most relevant witnesses are PW-5 Pratima Devi who is the wife
of the informant; PW-6, Dr. Sonali Daisy Minz is the doctor who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; PW-7 Vikram Sahu who is the
informant of this case and PW-11 Balmukund Singh who is the
Investigating Officer of this case. Their evidences need to refer which are as
under:
(i) PW-5 Pratima Devi has stated that on 28.11.2021 the incident took
place but on 29.11.2021 she was informed that Tara Devi hanged
herself. However, after getting this information she herself, uncle Sukra,
Ropna, Shyama, her husband Vikram and Harijan Sahu went to village
Parahi and noticed that the dead body of deceased was hanged with help
of his saree into wooden log. The leg of his sister-in-law was found
folded and touching ground. Her ear ring was disturbed, there were
injuries into her left eye and the tongue was protruded, and it was
apparently noticed that she was killed and hanged. There was spot of
blood into the wall. She further deposed that her sister-in-law was killed
by Kamal Sahu with whom she stayed happily for about 6 months after
marriage. The court marriage was solemnized on 24.08.2021. Though,
there was good relation between the couple but fridge, sofa, etc. were
being demanded by the accused for which they were ready to provide.
Lastly prior to one week of the incident the deceased came to her and
the accused came to take her on 27.11.2021 and she moved with him on
next day i.e. 28.11.2021. However, she was carrying pregnancy of about
3 months and she was thinking to go to a Doctor for treatment but the
accused claimed that being husband he will take care of her. In para 3
she deposed that she made a call to mother and father of Kamal and she
was in impression that they killed her sister-in-law during the night
hours. In para 4 she deposed that her statement was recorded by the
police as well as her husband was also examined about the incident by
the police. She identified the accused present in the dock through V.C.
In her cross-examination by defence she deposed that,
whatever stated by her in her examination-in-chief, were given to the
police during her examination by police. In para 11 she deposed that she
informed the police about demand of fridge, cooler, etc. by the accused
persons but perhaps it was not mentioned by the police. In para 12 she
deposed that; she did not go to Doctor with Tara Devi for treatment
since Kamal Sahu told her that he will take care of her and she was
informed regarding pregnancy by her sister-in-law and was checked out
through pregnancy kit. In para 17 she deposed that Kamal Sahu is
tempo driver, he moved even on that day also leaving dead body of his
wife. She denied the suggestion of defence in specific terms and
admitted that she is not eye witness to the occurrence. Though, she was
informed by the father of Kamal Sahu regarding the incident.
(ii) P.W.6-Dr. Sonali Daisy Minz has deposed in his examination in
chief that on 30th November, 2021 she was posted as Medical Officer in
Sadar Hospital Gumla and on that very date she conducted postmortem
on the dead body of Tara Devi (female) and found the following:-
On external examination: i. Dead body was lying supine on
postmortem table, ii. Hematoma left eye. iii. Eyes closed. iv. Tongue
protruded. v. Marks of bruising, ecchymosis on front sides of neck,
around and above larynx. vi. Hematoma 2"x2" on left shoulder, on
either side of forehead (very small in size), on right back (3"x 1"). vii.
Abrasion on scalp.
On dissection: - i. Laceration of larynx, wind pipe and muscles and
vessels in front and sides of neck, ii. Fracture of cornea of the laryngeal
cartilage and hyoid bone. iii. Stomach contains semi digested food. iv.
Small intestine contains digested food. v. Large intestine contains faces
and gases. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.
Time of elapsed since death: 24 hours from PM examination.
Cause of death: Asphyxia due to throttling of neck.
Above mentioned injury was old one and there was no bleeding. Wound
margins were dry.
Above mentioned injuries are sufficient to cause death of a human being
in ordinary course of nature.
In case of suicide above mentioned injury is not possible.
she has identified and proved the postmortem report to be prepared by
her own handwriting and it bears her signature which has been marked
as Ext.P3.
In her cross-examination by defence she deposed that she
found swelling on the left eye of deceased. She has not mentioned
specific age of the swelling over the left eye. She did not find any cut
injury in the lip. She did not find bleeding from nose. She did not find
ligature mark on the neck of the dead body. She did find any bleeding or
clotted blood in the nose during postmortem. If ligature (saree) is used
immediately after throttling there would not be any ligature mark on the
neck area. All fingers or both hands appear to have been used in the
above-mentioned throttling. She did not find marks of all ten fingers.
However, during postmortem examination, she found marks of few
fingers on the neck.
(iii) PW-11 Balmukund Singh (I.O. of this case) has described the entire
facts of the case of the prosecution as stated by informant to him. In
para 4 he deposed that after getting information police personals arrived
at P.O. and dead body was taken out from hanging and it was apparent
that the deceased was throttled since there was sign of pressing of the
neck. He identified the entire fardbeyan, which has been marked as
Ext.P4/1. He further identified the endorsement over written report,
which has been marked as Ext.P4/2. He further identified formal FIR
which has been marked as Ext.P5. In para 6 he deposed that after getting
charge of investigation he perused the written report and recorded the
confessional statement of the accused, wherein he admitted his guilt,
thereafter, he was arrested in presence of witnesses and his memo of
arrest was prepared by him, to which he identified and proved, which
has been marked as Ext.P6. In para 7 he deposed that on 30.11.2021 he
visited the place of occurrence i.e. room of the deceased tow hic he
described in detail and specially mentioned that dead body of Tara Devi
was found hanging in wooden log into the room, severe injury was
found present near her left eye and there was mark of injury over her
lips.
In his cross-examination by defence he deposed that, on
29.11.2021 he took the charge of investigation. On the same day the
accused was arrested. Statements of Jiwanti Devi and Rakhi was
recorded by him. In para 21 he admitted that no any other incriminating
material was seized by him from the P.O. and denied the suggestion of
defence in specific terms. Further he denied the suggestion of defence
that having connivance with family members of deceased, he has
implicated the accused, who is innocent.
(iv) PW-7 Vikram Sahu, the informant of this case has deposed that the
deceased was his sister who got married with the appellant on 26.3.2021
and went to her matrimonial home, started residing there and remained
stayed happily for about 6 months, where she was killed in the night
hours of 28.11.2021, which could be noticed by them on 29.11.2021. He
further deposed that during night hours of 28.11.2021, his wife Pratima
Devi made a call to talk with his sister but it could not be arranged.
However, on 29.11.2021 father of Kamal Sahu informed his wife that
his sister-in-law hanged herself and she is no more. In para 2 he deposed
that prior to one week of the incident his sister Tara came to his home
and informed that Rs. 200/- was taken out by her for which Kamal Sahu
quarreled to her. However, on same evening Kamal Sahu came to his
home and on 28.11.2021 he taken away his sister with him for his
village. In para 4 he deposed that after getting the information of death
of his sister, he informed his uncle and went to village Parahi and
noticed some stains of blood over the wall of the room, where dead
body of his sister was hanged but its knee was touching the ground and
it was apparent that she was killed. He further deposed that lower
portion of her lip was swallowed. There were swelling into her neck and
chain was broken; the ear ring was into her head and ear ring of another
ear was properly placed. He further deposed that his sister has been
killed due to dowry. The matter was informed to police, where police
officials came and recorded his fardbeyan at the P.O. itself, whereon he
put his signature after reading the contents and considering it true. He
identified and proved signature over fardbeyan which has been marked
as Ext.P4.
In his cross-examination by defence he deposed that, he was
examined by the police again, wherein he stated that his sister was
murdered on 28.11.2021. He claimed in his cross-examination that
whatever contents has been stated in his examination in chief, were
narrated to police in his examination. In para 23 he stated that, it is true
that the incident of quarrel for Rs. 200/- took place prior to this incident.
He denied the suggestion of defence that the appellant did not kill his
sister, rather she hanged herself.
19. From perusal of record, prima facie it appears that after getting
information of death of deceased the informant has given fardbeyan before
the police, suspecting the involvement of present applicant/accused and
thereafter present applicant was apprehended by the police and on the basis
of discloser of the present appellant/applicant the dead body of deceased
was recovered which is admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
and thus, the aforesaid facts is itself self-explanatory for the
accused/appellant.
20. Further from impugned order it is evident that the plea of alibi taken
by the accused under Section 11 of the Evidence Act could not be proved by
the appellant/applicant. Thus, by taking into consideration the testimony of
P.W.6 along with the testimony of P.W.5 as also the testimony of P.W.7 i.e.
informant, this Court is of the considered view that is of the view that no
case has been made out by the applicant/appellant for suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
21. This Court, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, prima-facie,
is of the view that the present interlocutory application is not fit to be
allowed.
22. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed,
as such, disposed of.
23. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be
understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter one way
or the other and all the observations made by us hereinabove should be
taken as confined to dealing with the prayer of the applicant/appellant for
suspension of sentence under the relevant provision of BNSS, 2023. As and
when the main matter i.e. instant criminal appeal will come up for hearing,
it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by
the observations in this order.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
KNR/--
A.F.R.
