[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Malar Aged About 25 Years S/O ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.781 of 2022
With
I.A. No.2524 of 2026
------
Surendra Malar aged about 25 years S/O Sitlu Malar, Resident of
Village-Jhargaon P.O. & P.S.-Chainpur District-Gumla (Jharkhand).
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
------
06/Dated: 26.02.2026
I.A. No.2524 of 2026
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430(1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for
suspension of sentence dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, in connection with Sessions Trial
Case No.50 of 2019, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.42 of
2018, corresponding to G.R. No.873 of 2018, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life
along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he
has further been directed to undergo S.I. for 12 months and the
period of custody undergone during the trial has been directed to
be set off.
2. Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that although, the prayer for suspension of sentence of
the appellant has already been dealt with by this Court on merit
and this Court has declined to suspend the sentence but the
present application has been filed renewing the prayer for
suspension of sentence on the ground that the appellant has
undergone the sentence of about seven years.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, primarily on the ground of sentence having been
undergone, has submitted that the present application may be
allowed.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence by referring the order dated 21.02.2025
passed in I.A. No.1929 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, after
taking into consideration the testimony of witnesses, particularly,
the testimony of P.W.5, the informant, who has been considered
to be an eye-witness corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2, his
prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected.
5. So far as the issue of period of sentence having been undergone
by the present appellant of about seven years is concerned, it is a
case of conviction of life and as such, merely on the ground of
period of sentence undergone for about of seven years, the
present application is not fit to be considered.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
7. This Court has gone through the order passed by this Court, vide
order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A. No.1929 of 2025, whereby
and whereunder, after taking into consideration the testimony of
witnesses, particularly, the testimony of P.W.5 (the informant),
who has been considered to be an eye-witness corroborated by
the testimony of P.W.2, this Court has declined to suspend the
sentence, for ready reference, the order dated 21.02.2025 is
being quoted as under:-
"05/21st February, 2025
1. The instant Interlocutory Application is filed
on behalf of Appellant, namely Surendra Malar for
suspension of sentence in connection with
judgment of conviction dated 9th July, 2021 and
order of sentence dated 16th July, 2021, passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in
S.T. No. 50 of 2019, arising out of Chainpur P.S.
Case No. 42 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 873 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for Life and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) and in
default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for
12 months and the period of custody undergone
during the trial has been directed to be set off.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant
has submitted that this is a case where the
conviction is based solely upon the testimony of
P.W.5, who even cannot be said to be trustworthy.
It has been submitted that the testimony which
has been given with respect to the nature of injury
by the P.W.5 is not being corroborated from the
medical evidence and as such in view of the wide
contradiction between the ocular evidence and the
medical evidence, it is a fit case for suspension of
sentence and he has already undergone the
sentence for a period of Six years three months
12 days. Learned counsel for the appellant, based
upon the aforesaid grounds, submitted that this is
a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned
A.P.P., appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It
has been contended that looking to the testimony
of P.W.5, it appears that the P.W.5, being
Informant of the case, has fully supported the
prosecution version. The P.W.5 also remained
consistent during cross-examination. The learned
counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, submitted that this is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment and the ocular testimony
available in the Trial Court Record and other
material exhibits as available.
We have gone through the testimony of P.W.
5 in entirety and found that the P.W.5, i.e. the
Informant, has fully supported the prosecution
version. It is also evident from the cross-
examination part of the P.W.5 that he remained
consistent in the cross-examination of what he
has stated in the F.I.R. and that in his
examination-in-chief. We have also considered
the testimony of P.W.2, who has also supported
the prosecution version. The question, which has
been raised is that the evidence, which has been
given by the P.W.5, has not been corroborated by
the medical evidence, so far as the nature injury is
concerned.
Law in this regard is settled that if the
conviction is based upon the testimony of eye
witness, even though there is any contradiction,
the ocular evidence will not be allowed to be given
a go by over and above the medical evidence.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is
of the view that the prosecution version is willfully
supported by the P.W.2 and P.W.5 and as such,
this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence
and as such, the prayer for suspension of
sentence is rejected.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1929 of 2025 is
rejected."
8. It would be evident from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses
that the appellant has given fatal blow upon the deceased, due to
which, he has succumbed to death.
9. The present application has been filed primarily on the ground of
sentence having been undergone by the appellant of about seven
years but this Court is of the view that in a case of life sentence,
the period of sentence undergone of about seven years, cannot
be said to be proper consideration for suspension of sentence in
view of the fact that the balance is to be maintained to maintain
the law and order and to give message to the society being the
deterrent and if merely on the ground of seven years sentence
undergone against the sentence of life imprisonment, the same
will not be proper considering the culpability said to be proved in
course of trial on the basis of testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.5.
10. It needs to refer herein that recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Chhotelal Yadav versus State of Jharkhand & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal no.4804/2025) has specifically observed that
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.
11. Thus, it is settled connotation of law that even if the convict has
completed substantive sentence, that cannot be a sole ground for
suspension of sentence if the nature of offence having
been proved in course of trial is serious.
12. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of
the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence of the
present appellant.
13. Accordingly, I.A. No.2524 of 2026 stands dismissed.
14. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad J.)
26.02.2026
Rohit/-
