Jharkhand High Court
Daltanganj (Jharkhand) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2025
---------
(1) Rameshwari Singh Aged about 50 years, S/o Late Bhagat Singh
(2) Urmila Devi Aged about 49 years, Wife of Rameshwari Singh Both
R/o Village - Barwaiya, P.O. + P.S. - Panki, District- Palamu at
Daltanganj (Jharkhand) ... Appellants
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. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
-----------
th
03/Dated: 5 March, 2025
I.A. No. 405 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of the BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2024 and order of sentence
dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-III,
Palamu at Daltonganj in connection with S.T. Case No. 450 of 2019
arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 83 of 2019, whereby and whereunder,
the appellants has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for life and each of them are also directed to pay the fine
of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC
and in lieu of default of payment of fine each of them shall have to
undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months. And also sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the IPC and in
lieu of default of payment of fine, each of them shall have to undergo
further simple imprisonment for two months.
2. While pressing the instant interlocutory application, it has been
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that both
the appellants, namely, Rameshwari Singh and Urmila Devi, are
convicted on the basis of confessional statement having no eye witness.
3. It has further been contended that the confessional statement of the
appellant Rameshwari Singh, has only been recorded, which has been
marked as P-8, based only upon which the dead body has been
recovered.
4. No confessional statement of the second appellant, namely, Urmila Devi
has been recorded but even then, Urmila Devi has also been convicted
said to be the accomplice in the commission of the crime.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, has submitted
that the prosecution has been miserably failed in establishing the charge
said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and merely on the basis of
surmise and conjecture, both the appellants have been convicted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
contended that therefore it is a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended during pendency of the appeal.
7. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
8. Although, it has been submitted that it is not a case of eye-witness rather
it is a case of confessional statement leading to the recovery of dead
body based upon the confession recorded of the appellant-Rameshwari
Singh, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant that there is no
evidence to connect the connectivity of the commission of crime with the
appellant- Rameshwari Singh.
9. It has also been submitted that Urmila Devi is also accomplice to the
commission of the crime as would be evident from the testimony of PW
11-Arjun Oraon.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, based
upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that therefore it is not a fit
case where the sentence is to be suspended.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimony available in the Lower Court Records and other
material exhibits available therein.
12. We have examined the evidence which has been brought in course of the
trial against both of the appellants, namely, Rameshwari Singh and
Urmila Devi.
13. It is evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer, who has been
examined as PW-8, wherein he has deposed that he has recorded the
confessional statement of Rameshwari Singh, appellant No. 1, based
upon which the dead body has been recovered which was lying under the
sand and thereafter the seizure memo has been prepared which was duly
been signed by the appellant-Rameshwari Singh.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the conviction of
Rameshwari Singh, appellant No. 1, is based upon the recovery of the
dead body on the basis of his confessional statement which is marked as
P-8, as such, so far as the prayer for suspension of sentence of
Rameshwari Singh is concerned, it is not fit to be considered.
15. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being IA No. 405 of
2025, so far as it relates to stands rejected for Rameshwari Singh,
appellant No. 1, stands rejected.
16. So far as Urmila Devi, appellant No. 2, is concerned, we have gone
through the confessional statement of Rameshwari Singh which has been
recorded and there is no confessional statement said to be recorded of
Urmila Devi and the same fact has not been disputed by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
17. In view thereof, the prayer for suspension of sentence of Urmila Devi,
appellant No. 2, deserved to be considered.
18. Accordingly, the IA No. 405 of 2025 stands allowed so far as it relates to
appellant No. 2, namely, Urmila Devi.
19. In consequence thereof, the appellant No. 2, namely, Urmila Devi, is
directed to be released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Session Judge-III, Palamu at Daltonganj in
connection with S.T. Case No. 450 of 2019 arising out of Panki P.S.
Case No. 83 of 2019.
20. 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.
21. In view thereof, I.A. No. 405 of 2025 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Samarth
