Jharkhand High Court
Madho Hansda @ Dadu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 273 of 2021
----
Madho Hansda @ Dadu ... 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. M.M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
--------
th Order No. 05: Dated 19 November, 2025 I.A. No. 14931 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of sole appellant under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of order of sentence dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Spl. (POCSO) Case No. 31 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted u/s 376DA, 341/34,323/34 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentence R.I. for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and fine of Rs.50000/- for committing offence punishable under section 376DA of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine accused shall have to undergo an additional R.I. of one year; further sentenced him R.I. for one year for committing offence u/s 323 of the I.P.C., further a simple imprisonment of one -1- month for causing the offence punishable u/s 341 of the I.P.C., further sentenced him for R.I. for 2 years for causing offence punishable under section 506 of the I.P.C.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that earlier the appellant has filed I.A. No. 411 of 2024, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 19.03.2024 but now prayer for renewal for suspension of sentence has been made only on the ground of custody since the appellant has undergone sentence of about 7 years as of now out of maximum punishment of life.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the appellant may be released on bail by suspending the sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
4. While on the other hand, learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that the allegation is serious in nature, which has been proved, as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the material available on record particularly order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No. 411 of 2024 by which the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant has been rejected on merit after due consideration of the prima facie evidence available on record. -2-
6. It is evident from order 19.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 411 of 2024 that the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court by taking into consideration the testimony of the victim, P.W.1, who has consistently supported the prosecution version of commission of sexual assault attracting the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
7. We have also taken into consideration the testimony of P.W. 8, the doctor, who in P/V examination had found has opined to have the tenderness and redness present in below and lateral both side of vaginal orifice. The doctor has also found multiple abrasions in forearm in mediate side present as a mark of violence. The doctor has further opined that there is unsuccessful penetration of vagina. The redness is present in the private part of the victim.
8. For ready reference, the relevant part of order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 411 of 2024 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 273 of 2021] is quoted as under:
"11.This Court, in order to appreciate the argument and after going through the lower court records, has considered the testimony of the victim, P.W.1, who has consistently supported the prosecution version of commission of sexual assault attracting the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
12. The said version has also been supported by the doctor, P.W.8, wherein, the doctor has opined to have the tenderness and redness present in below and lateral both side of vaginal orifice. The doctor has also found multiple abrasions in forearm in mediate side present as a mark of violence. The doctor has further opined that -3- there is unsuccessful penetration of vagina. The redness is present in the private part of the victim.
13.The doctor has also given her deposition in the cross- examination to the effect that it is impossible to create such types of injuries artificially in the private part of a lady. Such types of injuries can be caused by other person only. She has further stated that as causing of such types of injury is a painful condition, no lady of formal prudence can cause such injuries herself in her private part.
14.The version of the victim has also been corroborated by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9.
15. The law is well settled that at the stage of passing order under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., the prima-facie case is to be seen and if the convict has been able to make out a prima-facie case for suspension of sentence, then only the sentence is to be suspended.
16. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason as referred hereinabove, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima-facie case for suspension of sentence.
17. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.411 of 2024 is dismissed."
9. Thus, from the aforesaid referred paragraph of the order dated 19.03.2024 it is evident that this Court has already considered the issue of suspension of sentence by taking into consideration of testimony of PW 1 victim; P.W.8-doctor and other witnesses i.e., P.W. 3, 4 and 9 and thereafter rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant on merit.
10. Now the main ground has been taken for renewal of the prayer for suspension of sentence on the basis of sentence already undergone i.e., seven years out of maximum sentence of life.
-4-
11. Herein, it is pertinent to note the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein at Paragraph-3, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally, but, when the sentence inflicted is the life imprisonment then the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach.Paragraph-3 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
"3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted."-5-
12. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Chhotelal Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15688/2025) has observed that ordinarily, if the sentence is for a fixed term, the court may exercise its discretion leniently in suspending such sentence of fixed term, pending the final disposal of the Criminal Appeal of the convict. For ready reference, paragraph 14 and 15 of the aforesaid order is quoted as under:
"14.The law as regards suspension of sentence by the appellate courts in exercise of powers under Section 389 of the Code (now Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is well settled. Ordinarily, if the sentence is for a fixed term, the court may exercise its discretion leniently in suspending such sentence of fixed term, pending the final disposal of the Criminal Appeal of the convict.
15.Even in cases where the sentence is for a fixed term, there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence."
13. Further, in case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-30 has laid down that while deciding the question that accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Paragraph-30 of the judgment is quoted herein below-
"30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of -6- conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused."
14. In the present case appellant has been convicted under section 376DA of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and also convicted under section under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
15. It is evident from the consideration made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that on the ground of sentence having been undergone in the matter of life imprisonment is to be considered by the Court by weighing the balance in between the culpability committed having been proved in course of trial. The parameter is different to that of term punishment since in a case where the sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed then the consideration is to be given on merit.
16. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely because the appellant has undergone seven years of sentence out of -7- the maximum punishment of life, it will not be proper to suspend the sentence.
17. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is rejected.
18. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) N.A.F.R. Alankar/-
19th November, 2025 -8-