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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.
7
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/ 8