Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Raut vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No.1254 of 2024
---------
Rakesh Raut ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State : None
---------
04/Dated: 07th July, 2025
I.A. No.7893 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023, for suspension of
sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
03.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 09.09.2024, passed
by the learned A.J.C - VIII, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 43 of
2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and has
been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for
life with fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302
IPC and in default of payment of fine further directed to
undergo SI for one year, for the offence under Section 27 (1)
of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7
years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine further SI for six months. All the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
the prayer for suspension of sentence has been renewed on
the ground that the appellant has completed near about seven
-1- Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1254 of 2024
years of sentence. The ground has been taken by addressing
this Court on the issue of merit also.
3. None is present to represent the State.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial court
in the impugned judgment as also the testimony along with
other documents available in the trial court record.
5. We have also gone through the order passed by this
Court dated 25.11.2024 in I.A. No.10451 of 2024, under
Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023, filed for suspension of
sentence, but was rejected by the aforesaid order.
6. The order of rejection of the prayer for suspension of
sentence vide order dated 25.11.2024 has not been
challenged by the appellant before the higher forum.
7. This Court has considered the issue in entirety by going
through the testimony of the witnesses. This Court has found
the direct complicity of the present appellant which required
to be seen at the aforesaid stage while considering the issue
of suspension of sentence. The relevant paragraphs of the
said order need to be referred herein which are quoted
herein-below :-
"22. In the instant case from the testimonies of the
witnesses, it is evident that the appellant is an ill-
tempered person and previously he has acted in violent
manner. PW.1 who is the daughter of the appellant, in
para-3 of her testimony has stated that her father prior
to this, three times had opened fire inside his house.
Once he had opened fire on her younger brother Ronit
Kumar. Then second time on her elder brother who
died and also upon her had opened fire and third time
he had opened fire due to being quarrel with the
neighbors.
-2- Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1254 of 2024
23. The aforesaid part of testimony of P.W.3 has fully
been substantiated by the P.W.2 namely Ronit Kumar
son of the appellant. He had stated at para-5 of his
testimony that prior to the occurrence, his father had
also opened fire on him on the day of Holi and he had
fled away due to fear. The matter was not reported by
him and at that time, his father had assaulted to his
mother by the butt of the gun. He stated that one day
prior to occurrence, his brother had made a call to him
and stated that his father used to quarrel with Rahul.
24. The aforesaid testimonies of the said witnesses
have also been corroborated by the testimony of P.W.3
who is the wife of the appellant who at para 2 of her
testimony has stated that her husband has rifle who
earlier also two times, has opened fire on his son, but
the pellet crossed towards wall and has also opened
fire upon neighbours and that time also, the pellet
crossed towards the wall."
8. The prayer has been renewed on the ground of
completion of near about seven years of sentence. The
conviction is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in
which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life in a case where the guilt has been
proved by the learned trial court, based upon the evidence, of
committing murder of his son.
9. The appellant, since, has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and as such he is
not coming under the parameter to consider the prayer for
suspension of sentence after rejection of the aforesaid prayer
in the first instance, since, the said parameter as has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 697, that if the appeal is not likely to be taken up
and the convict has undergone the period of more than ten
-3- Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1254 of 2024
years of sentence, then the prayer for suspension of sentence
is to be considered, but, even the appellant is not coming
under the aforesaid parameter.
10. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view
that no case is being made out to pass an order for
suspension of sentence. Further, if this Court will go into the
merit of the case as has been submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, then the same will
amount to reviewing the order passed by this Court dated
25.11.2024.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No.7893 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/-
-4- Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1254 of 2024
