Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) 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 Vill.-Barwaiya, P.O. + P.S.-Panki, Dist.-Palamu at Daltonganj
(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 Appellants :Mr.Sushil Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For the State :Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
--------
th
Order No. 05/ Dated: 16 October, 2025
IA No.12191 of 2025
1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 under Section 430(1)of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023for suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the
pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 68 of 2025 in connection
with S.T. Case No. 450 of 2019 arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 83 of
2019 against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2024 and order of
sentence dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-
III, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 and
201/34 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.
25,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for six months and also
directed to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the
offence under Section 201/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine,
further directed to undergo S.I. for two months. Both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently and the period of jail custody would be set
off.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant No. 1 that it is a
case where there are no eye witnesses. Therefore, prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the charge. It has also been contended that
the conviction is based only upon the confession made by the appellant
No. 1, save and except, the said confession, there is no evidence.
3. The ground of parity has also been taken. According to learned
counsel for the applicant, one co-convict namely Urmila Devi, appellant
No. 2 i.e. the wife of the applicant has been directed to be released on
bail after suspension of sentence passed by this Court vide order dated
05th March, 2025 in I.A. No. 405 of 2025. Learned counsel based on the
aforesaid ground has submitted that it is, therefore, fit case for
suspension of sentence.
4. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence and it has beencontended that although it is
not a case based upon the testimony of eye witness but the conviction is
totally based upon the recovery of the dead body on the confessional
statement of the present appellant.
5. Learned State counsel has further submitted that so far the ground
of parity is concerned, the case of co-convict namely Urmila Devi who
although has been confessed to be along with the present appellant but
there are no confession leading to recovery of the dead body rather the
dead body was recovered on the confession made by the present
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 68 of 2025
appellant who is the husband of the co-convict. Learned State counsel
based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a case where
the sentence needs to be suspended. It has further been submitted that the
bail application of present applicant/appellant No.1 has already been
dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 05 th March, 2025 in
I.A. No. 405 of 2025.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across
thefindings recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimony of the witnesses along with the confessional statement
marked as Exhibit P-8.
7. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the
basis of conviction of the present appellant is confession leading to
recovery. Therefore, the learned trial court has applied the statutory
provision as contained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. We have
gone through the confessional statement and found that the appellant
after committing the crime of murder of the deceased namely Aayush, a
13 years old boy, by strangulating, has buried the dead body beneath the
sand. When the appellant was apprehended, his confessional statement
was recorded which is marked as Exhibit-P-8 in which he has confessed
to commit the crime of murder of the deceased and buried it in the sand
which on his disclosure has been recovered by the Investigating Officer.
The learned trial Court has taken the said recovery of the dead body on
confession of the present appellant which is the basis for convicting the
present appellant. Therefore, the position of law as provided under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been applied.
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 68 of 2025
8. This Court therefore, is of the view, after going through provision
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the confessional statement leading
to recovery is admissible in evidence leaving aside all the other
disclosure made in the confessional statement.
9. This Court is of the view that it cannot be said that Trial Court has
committed an error. So far the issue of parity is concerned, it is evident
that there is no confession of the appellant No 2, namely, Urmila Devi
who has been released on bail in consequence of suspension of sentence
vide order dated 05th March, 2025 passed in I.A. No. 405/2025. In the
instant case, the confession of the present appellant is the basis, since,
the dead body was recovered on his confession. Hence the ground of
parity is not applicable reason being that the complicitor of the present
appellant is different to that of complicitor of appellant No. 2.
10. This Court considering the aforesaid discussion is of the view that
it is not a case wherethe sentence is to be suspended and accordingly,
I.A. No. 12191 of 2025 filed for suspension of sentence/grant of bail
by the appellant No.1 is hereby rejected and consequently disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
16.10.2025
Samarth/Basant
Uploaded on 17.10.2025
4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 68 of 2025
