Jharkhand High Court
Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1111 of 2024
---------
Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam Sharma, aged 34 years old,
son of late Rambriksh Sharma, resident of village Madarsa Road Unchari,
P.O. & P.S. & District-Garhwa
... ...
Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
-----------
th
02/Dated: 04 April, 2025
I.A. No.3045 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for
suspension of sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Garhwa in S.T. No. 358 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six months for
having committed offence under sections 302/34 of IPC and to undergo
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
R.I. for six months for having committed offence under section 120(B) of
IPC.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant:
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that no cogent material has
come against the appellant but even then the appellant has been convicted in
the present case.
3. It has been contended by making reference of the testimony of P.W.3 that
there is no connecting evidence and even if the testimony of P.W.3 will be
taken into consideration in entirety, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. The further reason has been contended that it is a case where the fight
between two groups occurred and in course thereof, the murder of the
deceased took place.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by this Court wherein the
sentence awarded against the co-accused persons, namely, Madan
Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari
@ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil have been suspended during
pendency of the appeal vide orders dated 27.02.2025 passed in I.A.
Nos.10583 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024], I.A. No.11285 of 2024
[Cr. A (DB) Nos.1194 of 2024] and I.A. No.1592 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB)
Nos.1264 of 2024] respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Submission of the learned counsel for the state :
7. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
8. It has been contended that the testimony of P.W.3 is very specific so far as
the culpability of the present appellant is concerned and based upon the said
testimony, the judgment of conviction has been passed by learned trial court.
9. It has been contended by referring to the orders passed by this Court in I.A.
Nos.10583 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024], I.A. No.11285 of 2024
[Cr. A (DB) Nos.1194 of 2024] and I.A. No.1592 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB)
Nos.1264 of 2024] preferred by Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md.
Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @
Sakil respectively, that the fact of specific culpability of present appellant
has been admitted by the learned counsel for the said appellants in the order
dated 27.02.2025 while arguing the cases of the aforesaid co-convicts but
now he is taking U-turn what he has argued in those appeals.
10.It has been submitted by referring to paragraph-3 of the said order wherein it
was argued that the name of present appellant, namely, Shyamraj Sharma @
Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam Sharma, Anil Paswan @ Bhikhu Paswan and Anil
Ram @ Deepak had been disclosed by the deceased to the P.W.3.
11.Argument, therefore, has been advanced that since the name of the appellant,
namely, Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram and other co-accused, Md.
Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @
Sakil has not been disclosed by the deceased to the P.W.3 the Co-ordinate
Bench this Court has passed the order for suspension of sentence of the said
co-accused.
12.Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that
the case of the appellant is not identical to that of the co-convicts, namely,
Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil
Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil, therefore, the principle of
parity will not be applicable herein.
13.The further submission has been made that the name of the present appellant
has been disclosed by P.W.3, hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
Analysis
14.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding
recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and
other material exhibits appended therewith.
15. We have also considered the order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2025 in
in I.A. Nos.10583 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024], I.A. No.11285 of
2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1194 of 2024] and I.A. No.1592 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB)
Nos.1264 of 2024] preferred by Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md.
Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @
Sakil respectively.
16.The issue of the parity has been taken as one of the grounds for suspension
of sentence with the co-convicts, namely, Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan
Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil
Khan @ Sakil.
17. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the issue of parity has
been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1486 wherein it has held as under:
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to
the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were
similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also
cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While
applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon
the role attached to the accused whose application is under
consideration."
18.It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers
in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances
before granting bail and by only simply saying that another accused has been
granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on
the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh
Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230
wherein it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the
High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are
oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged
offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has
held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the
totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :
(SCC p. 515, para 17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was
taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was
imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect
and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to
be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with
absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the
impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine
All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as
a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second
respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other
heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same.
Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its
approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and
accordingly we set it aside."
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in
which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two
orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of
Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai
Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High
Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-
15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13)
to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha
Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the
ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar
role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli
(A16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on
the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13)
who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court
has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by
parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the
accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail
was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine
whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the
accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is
of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of
parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot
pass muster under the law."
19. It is evident from the proposition laid down in the said cases that the factual
aspect governing the case of the culpability said to be committed by one or
the other, if found to be exactly the same and having taken into consideration
by the concerned Court, then only the principle of parity will be applicable.
20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law the Court has gone
through the order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2025 in I.A. Nos.10583
of 2024, 11285 of 2024 and 1592 of 2024 in Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024,
1194 of 2024 and 1264 of 2024 respectively and found therefrom
particularly from paragraph No. 3 of the said order wherein the argument
was advanced by the learned counsel who is the same counsel appearing in
the present case also that, the names of Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma
@ Shyam Sharma (present applicant/appellant), Anil Paswan @ Bhikhu
Paswan and Anil Ram @ Deepak had been disclosed by the deceased to
P.W.3.
21.The argument therefore was advanced that the name of the appellants,
namely, Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari
and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.1147 of 2024, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1194 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.1264 of 2024 respectively had not been disclosed by P.W.3.
22.This Court has considered the aforesaid submission by referring the
testimony of P.W.3 at paragraph 8 and has allowed the application filed on
behalf of the said co-convicts for suspension of sentence.
23.This Court, taking in to consideration that since the names of the present
appellant has been disclosed by the deceased to P.W.3 and further from the
testimony of P.W.3 particularly in cross-examination, it is evident that at the
time when the deceased was being carried to the hospital, he was having all
sense, is of the view that the issue of parity, which has been tried to be
drawn from the order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.
Nos.10583 of 2024, 11285 of 2024 and 1592 of 2024 in Cr. A (DB)
Nos.1147 of 2024, 1194 of 2024 and 1264 of 2024 is not applicable herein.
24.This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the specific attributability of
the present applicant/appellant has been proved by the P.W.3 and as such, it
is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
25.It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the
case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending before this Court
for its consideration.
26.Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/-
