( 2026:HHC:1799 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP No. 5093/2025 in Cr. A. No. 36/2025 Cr. MP No. 5097/2025 in Cr. A. No. 37/2025 Reserved on: 30.12.2025 Decided on: 06.1.2026 Cr.MP No. 5093/2025 in Cr. A. No. 36/2025 Pawan Kumar & anr. …..Appellants/Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent/Non-applicant Cr.MP No. 5097/2025 in Cr. A. No. 37/2025 Tano Devi …..Appellant/Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent/Non-applicant ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants/Applicants: Mr. Vineet Vashishtha, Advocate, in Cr. MP No. 5093/2025 in Cr. A. No. 36/2025. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, in Cr. MP No. 5097/2025 in Cr. A. No. 37/2025. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 2 For the Respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General Romesh Verma, Judge Since both these applications arise out of a common judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 25.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, HP hence these were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a common order. 2 The present order shall dispose of two separate applications i.e. (i) Cr.MP No. 5093/2025 filed by the appellants/applicants, Pawan Kumar @ Pappu and Anil Kumar @ Neelu and (ii) Cr.MP No. 5097/2025 filed by applicant/convict Tano Devi for suspension of execution of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2025 and 25.09.2025 respectively, as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, HP in case FIR No.7/2016 dated 11.01.2016, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) whereby each of the applicants has been convicted to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 3 as regards fine, applicants Pawan Kumar and Anil Kumar have been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- each and applicant Tano Devi has been directed to pay Rs.20,000- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, while the applicants have been acquitted under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. The applicants have submitted that they have no role to play in the commission of alleged offence and a false case has been planted against them. It has been stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has mis-read, mis-interpreted and misconstrued the evidence placed on record and has wrongly convicted them under the provisions of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It has been urged that applicant Pawan Kumar is aged about 37 years and is a poor man. He used to work as labourer and he is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of his wife and two school going children. Applicant Anil is aged about 35 years and is unmarried and he is also a labourer by profession and looking after his old and ailing father. 4. As regards applicant Tano Devi, it has been averred that she is aged about 75 years and an old infirm lady suffering from old age related diseases. ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 4 5. According to the applicants, they belong to schedule caste community and poor section of the society so much so that they are not in a position to even deposit the fine amount which has been imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In such circumstances, the applicants have sought their release on bail after suspending the sentence, as imposed upon them (supra). 6. On the other hand, both the applications have been strongly opposed by the respondent/State by filing detailed replies, wherein it has been categorically stated that the applicants have committed a heinous offence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence and conducting a full-fledged trial in accordance with law has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants, therefore, no interference is required in the present proceedings and the present applications are abuse of process of law and, thus, are liable to be rejected. 7. It has been submitted that the applications do not disclose any satisfactory ground or exceptional circumstance warranting interference in sentence of the applicants, that too, in a case, where heinous offence has been committed punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. It has been ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 5 further submitted that the suspension of sentence particularly in the cases involving heinous offences, has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been repeatedly held that suspension of sentence in appeal, particularly, in cases involving serious and grave offences, is not a matter of right and is to be granted only in rare and deserving cases. 8. We have heard Mr. Vineet Vashishtha and Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates, appearing for the respective applicants and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State and have also gone through the material available on record. 9. In the present case, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the present applicants for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and in view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. 10. In Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra and others (2002) 9 SCC 364, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the court ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 6 should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. It has been held as under:- “10. On perusal of the record and on consideration of the submissions in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in passing the order releasing the respondents on bail. The High Court has neither given any reason nor has indicated any exceptional Circumstance for granting bail to the respondents. In the above circumstances, it is difficult for us to even surmise the circumstance which prompted the learned Single Judge to consider the accused persons to be entitled to the discretionary relief of bail pending the appeal. The principle is well settled that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of the accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. Our attention has not been drawn to any material which would show that the learned Single Judge took into consideration the relevant factors while passing the bail order. We refrain ourselves from making any observation touching on merits of the case lest it may prejudice any of the parties. Suffice it to state that we do not ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 7 consider this a fit case for grant of bail to the respondents during pendency of the appeal filed by them. 11. In Vasant Tukaram Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “7. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 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 of the Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for order of suspension of execution of the sentence or an order of release if the accused is in confinement. The said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. 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.” 12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, an endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 8 chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something ‘palpable’. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. 13. From the perusal of the judgments supra, it is clear that there has to be careful consideration and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed in a routine manner in heinous offence. 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. Now coming to the present proceedings, it would be noticed that perusal of testimonies of PW3 Ajay Kumar, PW4 Sumna Devi, PW5 Subhash Chand Rana, PW6 Pawna, PW7 Dharam Chand, more particularly, PW8 Kavita Devi, alleged eye witness, would go to prima facie indicate for the determination of the present applications that the applicants are involved in commission of offences and they have strengthened the case of the prosecution, which led to conviction and sentence of the applicants. ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 9 15. ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 9 15. It has been categorically deposed by PW8 that on 10.1.2016, she and her sister Babita heard certain noises from the house of Kanta Devi. They went to the spot where they saw the deceased being beaten up by Tano, Pawan, Nilu @ Anil with the aid of stick, kick and fist blows. According to PW8 applicant Tano Devi was holding a stick with which she gave a blow on the head of the deceased. Applicant Pawan was holding another stick. Her elder sister Babita told applicants not to fight and give beatings to deceased as the deceased and applicants were drunk. Applicant Anil gave kick and fist blows to the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries on his head and he was bleeding from his head. They told the deceased to run away from the spot but he was hurt so badly that he was not a position to run. Testimony of PW8 seems to be cogent, authentic and convincing. 16. PW1 Sant Ram has testified that when they reached at Police Station, Baijnath, the police called the applicant Pawan Kumar, he made disclosure statement, Ext. PW1/B, which led to recovery of Danda, Ext. P2 used in the alleged commission of offence. In his cross-examination also he categorically stated that Danda, Ext. P2 was the same which ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 10 had been got recovered by applicant Pawan Kumar. 17. Medical evidence also testifies the commission of the offence. The testimonies of the official witnesses also direct needle of suspicion and involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence. 18. Learned counsel for the applicants have failed to make out a prima facie case at this stage and convince the Court that there are fair chances of acquittal of the applicants. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases has held that while dealing with cases of suspension of sentence, the Court must take into account the fact that once the learned trial court has taken into account all the factual matrix then until and unless there are fair chances of acquittal no relief can be granted to the applicant. Therefore, the applicants have failed to make out a case for suspension of sentence. 20. Considering the averments and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the appellants have failed to furnish strong and compelling reasons for suspension of sentence, thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken into account entire material placed on record and has discussed each and every point, ( 2026:HHC:1799 ) 11 therefore, at this stage, no relief with respect to suspension of sentence can be granted in favour of the applicants. 21. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant applications and the same are accordingly dismissed. 22. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main cases and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here-in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant applications. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) 06.1.2026 Judge (pankaj)