Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.640 of 2020
-----
Dhananjay Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Late
Ramdhari Pandey, resident of Village-Khardiha, P.O. & P.S.-
Ranka, District-Garhwa. ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
------
Order No. 11/Dated 10 September, 2025
th
I.A. No.11961 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 on behalf of the appellant, for suspension of sentence
dated 21.10.2020 passed in S.T. No.366 of 2015 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa in connection
with Ranka P.S. Case No.96 of 2015 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.1057 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year.
2. Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that on earlier two occasions the
case of the appellant has been rejected on merit by the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench as also by this Bench, in
addition thereto, four interlocutory applications had not
been pressed being I.A. No.85 of 2022, I.A.No.9154 of 2022
and I.A. No.12010 of 2024.
3. The ground taken in renewing the prayer for
suspension of sentence is that the custody of the appellant
is approaching 10 years.
4. Learned counsel based upon the period undergone in
custody, has submitted that the present application for
suspension of sentence may be considered.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by making
reference of the order dated 14.06.2021 and 13.03.2024 by
which the case of the appellant has twice been rejected on
merit on the ground of dying declaration having been
recorded by PW-18, the Naib Tehsildar, Ambikapur.
6. Learned counsel has further submitted that on three
other occasions also, the applications have been filed by not
pressed.
7. So far as custody is concerned, it has been submitted
that the custody cannot be the sole criteria if the nature of
offence is heinous.
8. The submission, therefore, has been made that in the
present case the nature of crime committed by the appellant
is heinous, since, in the dying declaration it has been stated
by the deceased that while she was cooking, she was burnt
by pouring kerosene oil upon her in the matrimonial house
itself as she used to object his drinking habits.
9. Learned State counsel has submitted that it is not a
case where merely on the ground of custody, prayer for
suspension of sentence is to be taken into consideration.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the averment made in the instant interlocutory
application.
11. This Court, before considering the issue of custody,
needs to refer herein the culpability said to be committed
which has been proved in course of the trial as per the
testimony adduced by the witnesses and moreover the dying
declaration of the deceased which was recorded by the PW-
18, the Naib Tehsildar, Ambikapur.
12. The fact about the nature of crime has been taken
into consideration by the Coordinate Bench vide its order
dated 14.06.2021 rejecting the interlocutory application
being I.A. No.558 of 2021 filed for suspension of sentence.
13. It is evident from the finding part that the Coordinate
Bench has taken into consideration the dying declaration
having been recorded by PW-18, the Naib Tehsildar,
Ambikapur, in which the deceased has clearly stated that
the appellant poured kerosene oil on her while she was
cooking which caused burn injuries to her as she used to
object his drinking habits, for ready reference the operative
part of the order is being referred herein :-
"We have considered the submission of learned counsel
for the parties and taken note of the material evidence on
record relied upon by them from the lower court records. The
dying declaration was recorded by P.W. 18 in question answer
form after he was appointed by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Ambikapur in which the deceased has clearly stated that
appellant poured kerosene oil on her while she was cooking
which caused her burn injuries to her as she used to object
his drinking habits. It further appears that the conduct of the
appellant in evading appearance before the Investigating
Agency for five months till he surrendered on 18th September,
2015 is inexplicable given the fact that the occurrence
occurred in his own house.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not
inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the
appellant, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer made in I.A.
No. 558 of 2021 is rejected."
14. This Court has again considered the issue on merit
while dealing with interlocutory application being I.A.
No.10469 of 2023.
15. The question of custody of 08 years was taken in
addition to the argument advanced on merits.
16. We have considered the issue on merit by taking note
of the order dated 14.06.2021, particularly, the operative
part as quoted hereinabove.
17. The issue of custody of 08 years has also been taken
into consideration and this Court has given a finding that
the question of completion of custody of 08 years is not a
matter to be considered in the present case wherein the
culpability of the appellant has been found to be proved by
the prosecution as per the judgment passed by the learned
trial court which is based upon the dying declaration of the
deceased, for ready reference, paragraph 9 of the order dated
13.03.2024 is being referred herein :-
"9) The question of completion of custody eight years is not a
matter to be considered in the present case wherein the
culpability of the appellant has been found to be proved by the
prosecution as per the judgment passed by the learned Trial
Court which is based upon the dying declaration of the
deceased which was recorded by PW.18. The aforesaid aspect
of the matter has already been taken note by the Coordinate
Bench. ... ..."
18. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant has filed
three applications but not pressed as would be evident from
the order dated 19.01.2022 [I.A. No.85 of 2022], order dated
17.11.2022 [I.A.No.9154 of 2022] and order dated
11.02.2025 [I.A. No.12010 of 2024].
19. So far as the consideration which has been sought to
be made by filing the instant interlocutory application is that
the appellant is approaching the custody of 10 years, is
concerned, this Court is of the view that the period of custody
can be taken as one of the ground for suspension of
sentence but it cannot be sole ground rather the requirement
for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for
ordering suspension of execution of sentence and the
requirement of recording reasons clearly indicates that there
has to be careful consideration of relevant aspects.
20. Reference in this regard be made to judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State
of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC 175, State of
Maharashtra v. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth, (2008) 5
SCC 721, Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638 and
Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5
SCC 281, wherein it has been uniformly laid down that one
of the essential ingredients of Section 389 Cr.P.C (Pari
Materia of Section 430 BNSS) is the requirement for the
appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering
suspension of execution of sentence and the requirement of
recording reasons clearly indicates that there has to be
careful consideration of relevant aspects.
21. In the above context, the word 'reason' refers to
reasons which justify the suspension of sentence in all
judicial senses, therefore, period of custody served may be
one of the reasons in a given case but may not justify the
conscious of the Court to decide the prayer of suspension of
sentence without consideration of the evidence produced on
record, its quality and reliability, the nature and gravity of
the offence, the manner and method in which it has been
committed, its impact over the society or the public at large,
the object of the law in dealing with the crime, the special
enactment introduced to curb the menace etc. and peculiar
facts and circumstances of any particular case.
22. Further no straight jacket formula can be applied in
all cases that after completion of substantial period of the
sentence awarded, the convict is entitled for suspension of
sentience in each and every case. It is the Court who should
take the responsibility to maintain a balance between the
rights of the oppressor and the rights of the sufferer and
granting suspension of sentence without assigning any
reason, simply on the basis of period of custody, can never
satisfy or justify a judicial conscious.
23. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled
position and further taking into consideration that on the
earlier occasion the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
present applicant/appellant has been rejected twice on merit
and further adverting to the nature of crime said to be
committed by the appellant, wherein the deceased herself
has substantiated the commission of crime committed by the
appellant in her dying declaration which has not been
rebutted, as would be evident from the judgment rendered
by the learned trial court as also the material available in the
trial court record, is of the view that no positive direction can
be passed for suspension of sentence.
24. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of
the appellant is rejected. I.A. No. 11961 of 2025, is hereby
dismissed.
25. The appellant is at liberty to make appropriate
application for early hearing of the instant appeal.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Birendra/
