Supreme Court of India
PAOL HANSDA @ PAUL HANSDA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - on 27 October 2026
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 59484/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2019
in CR(J)A(DB) No. 283/2014 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]
PAOL HANSDA @ PAUL HANSDA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 306477/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 306478/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 27-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Vaishnavstuti, Adv. (Arguing counsel)
Ms. Vidula Mehrotra- 4129, AOR (Not present)
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
3. Leave granted.
4. Heard Ms. Vasihnavstuti, learned counsel for the appellant, at length. She has argued before this Court that an eyewitness, PW9-Basanti Hansda (daughter of the deceased), has not stated against the present accused and
Digitally signed by JAGDISH KUMAR Date: 2026.10.27 17:24:26 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified that the other witnesses are not reliable, as their evidence is hearsay evidence. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of the witnesses, contending that there is every possibility of the acquittal of the present appellant. She has also stated that the appellant has undergone 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. She has further argued before this Court that the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for committing the murder of his wife, Budhani Soren, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, he has undergone 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, and she has prayed for suspension of the sentence.
5. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the records is of the opinion that the prayer for suspension of sentence is allowed.
6. The appellant is accordingly directed to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court, subject to payment of the fine of Rs.5,000/-, if not already paid.
7. Let the original records of the High Court and Trial Court be requisitioned.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (KOMAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)