Introduction 

• This case sets a principle for the appellate courts in determining the appeals based on Section 389 of CrPC. 
• This case states that there must be an error on the face of the order to suspend the sentence under Section 389 of CrPC. 

Facts 

• The complaint was filed by the appellant for the murder of his brother by the respondents. 
• The suit was instituted, and the Trial Court delivered its judgment in favor of the appellant, charging the accused under Sections 302, 120-B, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA). 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal before the Patna High Court to be released on bail and to suspend the order of the Trial Court.  
  • The High Court granted bail to the respondents and suspended the order passed by the Trial Court due to an inordinate delay in filing the report, which led to the First Information Report. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgement? 

 Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that to check the validity of the judgment passed by the trial court, the error must appear on the face of it.  
• There should be something very apparent and prima facie to invalidate its ruling under Section 389 of CrPC.   
• The Supreme Court also noted that re-appreciation of evidence must not be done by the Appellate Court and that the aspects considered by the High Court while passing the order were not appropriate to be considered at this stage. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court allowed the present appeal and held that the High Court had erred in suspending the substantive order of the sentence of the respondents and releasing them on bail.