[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rabindra Sen @ Arbinda Sen vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.310 of 2022
------
Rabindra Sen @ Arbinda Sen .... .... 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. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
------
06/Dated: 19.01.2026
I.A. No.16297 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430 of the B.N.S.S. for suspension of sentence dated 04.01.2022
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I at Ghatsila,
Singhbhum East in connection with Sessions Trial No.36 of 2019,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for
the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and directed to
undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence has been made
by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No.1903 of 2023,
which however, was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2023 but
the prayer for suspension of sentence is being renewed on the
ground of total period of sentence having been undergone by the
present appellant, i.e., approximately eight years.
3. He has also tried to impress upon the Court on merit.
4. Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on the
ground that the prayer for suspension of sentence has already
been dealt with by this Court on 27.02.2023 and on consideration
of the testimony of P.W.6, namely, Laljee Hembrom (A.S.I.), in
whose presence, the dying declaration of Ananto Sen (deceased)
was recorded.
5. It has also been submitted that the said order has attained its
finality.
6. So far as the issue of custody is concerned, the sentence is only
of eight years, one month and 20 days and as such, taking into
consideration the involvement of the present appellant, it is not a
fit case for suspension of sentence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The fact about consideration of prayer for suspension of sentence
has already been considered by this Court, as would be evident
from the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in I.A. No.1903 of 2023.
9. It is evident from the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2023 that this
Court has taken into consideration the testimony of P.W.6,
namely, Laljee Hembrom (A.S.I.), in whose presence, the dying
declaration of Ananto Sen (deceased) was recorded, which was
the basis of rejection of prayer for suspension of sentence of the
present appellant.
10. This Court, since, has taken into consideration the issue on
merit and the same has not been carried out before the Higher
Forum and as such, there is no question of again giving the
consideration on the issue of merit, since, the issue has already
been dealt with by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2023 by
dismissing the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1903 of
2023.
11. Further, it has been contended by the appellant that the prayer
for suspension of sentence is being renewed on the ground of
total period of sentence having been undergone by the present
appellant, i.e., approximately eight years.
12. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that it is the
settled position of law that the period of custody cannot be the
sole ground for suspension of sentence, rather, the nature of
crime as has been found to be proved against one or the other,
the appellant herein, is to be taken into consideration and 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.
13. At this juncture, it requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC
175 has observed that 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, and the order directing suspension of
sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of
routine, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment are being quoted herein:-
"6. 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. 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.
7. 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. ------"
14. Further, 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.
15. 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.
16. Therefore, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that since, it is a case of conviction under
Section 302 of the IPC and taking into consideration the
involvement of the present appellant in the said case and the
period of custody having been undergone by the appellant of
about eight years, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence of the present appellant.
17. Accordingly, I.A. No.16297 of 2025 stands dismissed.
18. 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.)
(Arun Kumar Rai J.)
19.01.2026
Rohit/-
