Jharkhand High Court
Banti Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 717 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 8830 of 2025
---------
1. Banti Saw, aged about 35 years, son of Sukar Saw, resident of
Village Kathadih, P.O. and P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
(Jharkhand) at present r/o Ward No.3, near Railway Phatak Aam
Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Asansol South, District-Bardhman (W.B.).
2. Sukar Saw, aged about 65 years, son of Late Chokan Saw, resident
of Village Kathadih, P.O. and P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
(Jharkhand) at present r/o Ward No.3, near Railway Phatak Aam
Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Asansol South, District-Bardhman (W.B.).
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Sahil, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
-----------
th
09/Dated: 14 October, 2025
I.A. No. 8830 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application, under Section 430(1) of BNSS,
2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant no.1 for suspension of
sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated
30.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 03.05.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Sessions Trial
No.18 of 2023, in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 59 of
2022, whereby and whereunder, the applicant no.1 has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
for the offence under Section 302 r/w 120-B of IPC alongwith fine of
Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo R.I. for one year; the applicant no.1 has also
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for
the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC alongwith fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the applicant no.1 has
further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which
read as under:
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of typed
petition of the informant Choukidar Mahendra Kumar Yadav against
unknown, alleging that on 01.08.2022 at about 4:10 pm he was
engaged in serving notice at Urwan More. In the meantime, he got
rumour information that there is a dead bod of an unknown girl in
Telaiya Dam near Jawahar Ghati. He (informant) informed such
matter to O/c Sri Anil Kumar Singh of Chandwara Police Station
then proceeded to Jawahar Ghati and reached there at 16:30 hrs.
Then, he saw a dead body of a girl beneath the new construction of
bridge near Jawahar Ghati. The hands and limbs of dead body were
bound with the help of dupatta and there was sign of injury/
contusion on mouth. It reveals that the girl after being assaulted was
murdered and her hands and legs were tied and her dead body was
thrown in the Dam to disappear the real fact. Subsequently, O/c and
S.I. Hardugan Horro, A.S.I. Ramswaroop Yadav reached with armed
forces at the place of occurrence and taking the dead body in their
custody, they did further action. During investigation after getting
knowledge that his daughter was killed by accused then on
27.10.2022, one Mahadeo Sao (father of the deceased Kavita),
submitted an application to the Officer-in-charge of Chandwara
Police Station that his deceased daughter was married with accused
Banti Sao in the year 2009 at Asansol (West Bengal). Out of her wed
lock, a daughter, now aged about 11 years, and two sons were born.
It was alleged therein that from the very initial days of the marriage
of the deceased, her husband Banti Sao, his three brothers and his
parents used to demand dowry from the deceased and for the same,
they used to give her beatings and commit cruelty upon her.
Regarding the same, deceased had informed her father and mother
several times, but every time, she was suggested by her parents to
adjust with her matrimonial family members and live there. Her
father had also called a Panchayati in this regard by going at the
matrimonial home of his deceased daughter.
Police after completion of investigation submitted Charge
sheet against accused persons, keeping further investigation against
rest accused persons. The learned trial court took cognizance of the
offences punishable U/ss 302, 201/ 34 of IPC on 11.01.2023 and
committed the case record to the Court of Session. On 28.03.2023
charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence
punishable U/ss 302, 201/ 34 and 120-B of the IPC.
3. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the applicant No.1 alongwith
another were found guilty and consequently have been convicted by
the learned trial court and has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w 120-B of
IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
he has further been directed to undergo R.I. for one year; the
applicant No.1 alongwith another were have also been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under
Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, applicant No.1 alongwith another were
have further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months.
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of
applicant/appellant no.1 for suspension of sentence during pendency
of the instant appeal.
Submission on behalf of the Applicant:
5. Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the applicant no.1, at the outset, has
submitted that earlier the present applicant had preferred one
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9677 of 2024 for suspension
of sentence during pendency of the appeal but the said interlocutory
application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2024.
Thereafter, again another interlocutory application being I.A. No.
1198 of 2025 was filed for suspension of sentence but, after some
argument, the same was dismissed as not pressed.
6. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of applicant no.1 renewing the prayer for suspension of
sentence on the ground that the judgment of conviction is without
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant
no.1 is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case only for
the reason that the applicant no.1 is the husband of the deceased.
7. It has been submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence
and the applicant no.1 has been convicted only on circumstantial
evidence and on the basis of the evidence of witnesses who are
hearsay and are interested witnesses.
8. It has also been submitted that the prosecution and the learned trial
court have relied upon the testimony of P.W.-5 who is the minor
daughter of the deceased and there is contradiction in her deposition
but the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration that
the P.W.-5 being the minor is easily susceptible to tutoring and as
such, her evidence ought to have been considered in a cautious
manner.
9. It has further been submitted that the Doctor has also opined that
there was no external injury over the dead body of the deceased but
the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the said
aspect of the matter and has convicted the applicant no.1, which is
arbitrary.
10. The ground of custody has also been taken as the applicant no.1 is
languishing in judicial custody since 28.10.2022.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant no.1, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that the learned trial court has failed to take into
consideration the aforesaid facts, therefore, it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence so that the applicant no.1 be released from
judicial custody.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
12. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
13. It has been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the case and particularly the P.W.-5 Muskan Sao @ Prity
Kumari, daughter of deceased and applicant no.1 Banti Saw has
supported the case of prosecution.
14. It has also been submitted that the deceased was wife and daughter-
in-law of the accused persons and they have not informed regarding
the missing of the deceased.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application may be
rejected.
Analysis:
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties.
17. Before entering into the issue that whether the prayer of the
applicant/appellant no.1 for suspension of sentence is fit to be
allowed or not, it requires to refer herein the settled position of law.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09th April, 2025. 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 which are being reproduced 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."
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court
is now adverting to the impugned order, wherefrom it is evident that
the applicant no.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 201 IPC and ordered
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
22. The trial court has observed that witnesses have narrated that there
was no cordial relation between husband and wife(deceased) and
they used to quarrel and at one time, appellants separated the
deceased after dividing household articles. The evidence of P.W.-5
and statement of P.W.-5 u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. shows that applicant
No.1 used to assault brutally the deceased.
23. The learned trial court has also observed that just before and after
such heinous crime, the appellant and another confined the children
particularly P.W.-5 and threatened the witness not to disclose any
one and confessed before the P.W.-5 and other persons including
Asansol Police Station officials that they have killed the deceased.
24. It has also been observed in the impugned judgment that the
postmortem report also corroborates the version of witnesses
particularly P.W.-5. Doctor has been examined as P.W.-9 and doctor
has clearly found that both the hands and legs of the deceased were
tied and she was thrown in the water after tying her hands and legs as
dead body was recovered after 72 hours. So external injuries cannot
be detected and doctor has clear opinion that she was killed and her
hands and legs were tied by dupatta. The chest was full of water and
froth which shows that the deceased was thrown in the water in alive
condition after tying her hands and legs.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant no.1, although has not pleaded in
the instant interlocutory application about the prayer for suspension
of sentence having been granted in favour of the applicant no.2 vide
order dated 08.08.2024 but the same has orally been submitted
before this Court and taken as a ground that the prayer for
suspension of sentence of the present applicant no.1 may also be
considered.
26. This Court, based upon the aforesaid oral submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant no.1, has gone through the order dated
08.08.2024 by which the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
applicant no.2 has been allowed as also gone through the material
available on record and has found therefrom that there is no specific
allegation or overt act attributed against the applicant no.2, save and
except, he also boarded the vehicle in which the deceased was
forcibly taken by the others. But, against the applicant no.1, there is
specific allegation of commission of alleged crime which has been
substantiated by the prosecution witnesses and particularly, P.W.-5
who has specifically stated that the applicant no.1 used to beat the
deceased brutally and P.W.-5 further stated that her father, applicant
no.1 herein, has told her that he has killed her mother.
27. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is considered view of this Court that
since at this stage this Court has to see only prima facie case as per
the settled position of law as discussed and referred hereinabove and
cannot delve deep into the appreciation of the evidence, therefore,
prima facie, taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.-5, the
daughter of the deceased and applicant no.1, who is said to be the
eye witness of the part of the occurrence, this Court is of the view
that no case has been made out by the applicant/appellant no.1 for
suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
28. 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.
29. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed,
as such, disposed of.
30. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties as the criminal appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
14th October, 2025
Saurabh/-
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 15.10.2025
