Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006662023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) IA(Crl)/34/2023 Tulsi Das Age: 39 Occupation : Address:W/o Lt. Montu Das Resident of Korunabari PO/PS Laluk North Lakhimpur District. Assam. M. No. 9362102126 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Represented by the Public Prosecutor. 2:Lalit Tamang Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Mon Bahadur Tamang Resident of Lalten Basti Rupa PO/PS Rupa District West Kameng Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for : Uttam Deka Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for THE STATE OF AP and Anr.: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. Page No.# 2/5 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 08.01.2025 (M. Nandi, J) Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. praying for granting bail to the applicant/ appellant by suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal in connection with Bomdila Sessions Case No.24/12 against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2023 and 04.04.2023 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, the applicant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has convicted the applicant/appellant in a wrong notion as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The Trial was based on circumstantial evidence and the requirement of circumstantial evidence has not been fulfilled during the trial. In spite of that, the applicant/ appellant was convicted for life imprisonment. 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant, the learned Trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that even the brother of the deceased person who deposed as PW. 2 only stated that he suspected that the Page No.# 3/5 applicant/ appellant might have killed his brother and that he was not aware of the reason as to why the applicant/appellant could kill his brother. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has also pointed out that the deposition of the prosecution witnesses revealed that the prosecution had failed to discharge their burden of proving the case against the applicant/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Rather, from the said depositions, it transpires that the applicant/ appellant should be acquitted on benefit of doubt. It is well settled principles of law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence and the law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of suspicion only. 6. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the applicant/appellant be released on bail during pendency of the appeal as there are several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the alleged offence. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. PP Mr. G. Tado has vehemently objected in granting bail to the applicant/appellant by stating that though there is no any direct evidence against the applicant/ appellant that he had committed the crime but the applicant/appellant had confessed before the Magistrate that he had committed the crime. On the basis of such confessional statement, the applicant/appellant was convicted. It is also submitted that as there was no any whisper from the side of the accused during the trial regarding confessional statement be recorded under the influence or duress and as such, the learned Page No.# 4/5 Addl. PP prays for dismissal of the bail application suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. While considering the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, the appellate Court is not required to consider the evidence on record meticulously lest it should affect the merits of the case while considering the main appeal. The appellate Court has to consider the case just to find out whether there is a prima facie case to hold that there has been some miscarriage of justice which may be apparent on the face of the record and in such situation, the suspension of sentence can be ordered and as a consequence that applicant/appellant can be released on bail. 10. In the case of Ramji Prasad-vs-Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another; reported in (2002) 9 SCC 366, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where an accused was found guilty by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in some exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. 11. In another case, titled Kishori Lal-vs-Rupa and Others; reported in (2004) 7 SCC 638 , It has been held that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted, after taking into consideration relevant factors like nature of accusation, manner in which the crime is alleged Page No.# 5/5 to have been committed, gravity of the offences and desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. 12. Reverting back to the case in hand, it reveals that the applicant/appellant had confessed before the Magistrate that he had committed the offence of murder and this Court, at this stage, is not going to consider whether the confessional statement has been recorded by the learned Magistrate properly or not. Hence, without further going into the merits of the case, at this stage, the prayer for bail suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal stands rejected. In terms of the above, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant