[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dhodho Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.264 of 2017
-----
Dhodho Kachhap, S/o Late Heta Kachap, R/o Village Badam,
Kadamtoli, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilway, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : None
.........
11 /19.02.2026: I.A. No.15443 of 2025
This interlocutory application has been filed by the
appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release
him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in
connection with in S.T. No.526 of 2014, arising out of Tatisilwai
P.S. Case No.44 of 2014, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone
through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial
Court Records.
4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail,
which the State availed and opposed.
5. This is fifth attempt of the appellant praying for suspension
of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of this
appeal. The ground of the appellant is that he is in custody since
04.06.2014. Further, it has been argued that the conviction is
based on the deposition of the sole eye-witness, PW-6, but PW-6
cannot be relied on the ground that in the F.I.R. he stated that
this appellant had committed murder by stabbing his father by
knife along with another person, but while deposing, he has not
whispered about the second person.
6. This is an application for suspension of sentence and
releasing the appellant on bail.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Yadav
Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr." reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3062 has held in paragraph 16 that while dealing with
suspension of sentence of life imprisonment the only
consideration should be whether the convict is in a position to
point out something very palpable or there is a very gross error
in the judgment of Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to
make a good case and, on that ground, alone he be acquitted.
It is necessary to quote paragraph 16 of the aforesaid
judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-
16. What could be those exceptional circumstances is not something
exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those exceptional
circumstances as may be pointed out by the State. However, the only
consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while
considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is
that the convict should be in a position to point out something very
palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court on the
basis of which he is able to make good his case that on this ground alone,
his appeal deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.
In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paragraph No.17 has held that the High Court unfortunately did
not take into consideration the aforesaid principle governing
suspension of substance order of sentence of life imprisonment.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jamnalal Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Another.", reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1641, relying upon the judgement of "Omprakash Sahni Vs.
Jai Shankar Chaudhary, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123" has
reiterated the aforesaid principle. Several paragraphs of the
judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) was extensively quoted
by the Hon'ble Supreme in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid
judgment. We are inclined to quote paragraph 33 of the
judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) which is as below:-
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."
9. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment also it is clear that the
appellant should come up with some cogent and strong material
in his favour which would ultimately result in his acquittal. If
there has a fair chance of acquittal, then ultimately sentenced can
be suspended. It has been further observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph No.33 of Omprakash Sahni (Supra)
that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at
the stage of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and try to pick up a few lacuna
and loopholes here and there in the case of the prosecution
which should not be the correct approach.
10. Considering the aforesaid principle, while we go through
the impugned judgment, we find that PW-6 is prima facie and eye
witness. He has given his statement as PW-6 that it is this
appellant, who had committed murder of the deceased by
stabbing him. As per the deposition, the injuries on the chest is
corroborated by the medical evidence also. In view of the specific
statement of PW-6, at present, we are not in a position to come to
a conclusion that there is overwhelming material or there is
serious lacuna in the judgment which ultimately can lead
acquittal of this appellant.
11. Thus, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No.15443 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
19th February, 2026
R.S./S.K.D.
Uploaded on 21/02/2026
