[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Biran @ Birendra Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 234 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 2947 of 2026
---------
Biran @ Birendra Lohra, aged about 40 years, son of Budheshwar
Lohra, resident of Village-Banhardi, P.O. and P.S. Chandwa, District
Latehar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
-----------
th
09/Dated: 13 March, 2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 2947 of 2026:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
applicant for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment
of conviction dated 25.01.2020 and order of sentence dated
31.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Latehar in S.T. No. 84 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the
applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for committing the offence u/s 302/34 of
the IPC which shall be payable to the informant of this case namely
Kiran Devi (wife of the deceased). In default of payment of fine the
appellant has been ordered to undergo another R.I. for one year.
Further, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years and shall also be liable to pay
a fine of Rs.2500/- (two thousand five hundred) for committing the
offence u/s 201/34 of the I.P.C. which shall be payable to the State and
in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo another R.I. of
three month.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that it is a case where although the prayer for suspension of sentence
has been withdrawn on two occasions but the prayer is being renewed
on the ground that the applicant has already undergone sentence of 10
Page | 1
years, therefore, the ground of sentence of 10 years is the sole ground
taken for renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence.
3. While, on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
4. It has been contended by him that merely because the sentence of 10
years has been undergone by the applicant, the sentence may not be
suspended taking into consideration the nature of crime committed by
him as has been supported by the prosecution witnesses and also the
conviction is based upon the recovery of the head of the deceased from
a well on the disclosure made in the confessional statement of the
applicant as also the articles and weapons used in the commission of
crime has been recovered on the basis of the said confessional
statement.
5. It has been submitted that cutting the head and throwing it in the well
is not only serious but is in the nature of heinous crime.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the impugned judgment as also the learned trial court record.
7. As per the prosecution version, the applicant has been alleged to be
involved in the commission of murder of the deceased by cutting his
head and the headless dead body of the husband of the informant was
found. Prosecution witnesses altogether 11 in number have been
examined.
8. It is evident from the material available on record having been taken
into consideration by the learned trial court that the confessional
statement of the applicant has been recorded by the P.W.-10, the
investigating officer which has been marked as Ext.-8.
9. We have gone through the said exhibit and found that on the disclosure
of the applicant, the chopped-off head of Manoj Nayak (deceased) was
recovered from a well in the premises of Chandwa Agriculture Farm.
Further on his discloser statement the blood stained saw used in this
crime was recovered from the house of one Laldeo Oraon followed by
seizure list (Ext.9). Further, Chhapal and blood stained soil was found
where the headless dead body of the deceased was found which has
Page | 2
also been seized and seizure list was prepared marked as Ext. 9/1. He
also inspected the second place of occurrence which is a well in
Agriculture Farm, Chandwa Devi Mandap from there chopped-off
head of Manoj Kumar Nayak was recovered.
10. It further appears from the testimony of P.W.-10 that he has also
investigated the matter while visiting the second place of occurrence
from where the headless dead body was found.
11. The confessional statement of another accused person, namely, Rinku
Singh was also recorded marked as Ext.-10 and on his disclosure, the
Iron Hammer used in commission of this crime was recovered
followed by seizure list Ext. 9/2.
12. The witnesses have identified both the accused persons.
13. This Court after going through the impugned judgment has found that
the conviction of the applicant is based upon the recovery made on his
disclosure by taking aid of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
14. Although the issue on merit has not been argued on behalf of the
applicant rather emphasis has been made on completion of 10 years of
sentence against the sentence of life imprisonment.
15. This Court is conscious that the sentence is to be taken into
consideration as one of the grounds for suspension of sentence but it
cannot be the sole ground to suspend the sentence that too in a nature
of crime as has been found in the present case wherein the person
concerned, the deceased, has brutally been murdered by beheading
and throwing it in a well leaving the headless dead body.
16. Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being agitated but Article 21
cannot be invoked ignoring the nature of crime if found to heinous as
the facts of the present case is concerned rather the duty of the Court
of Law is by making balance, the sentence is to be suspended on the
ground of sentence having been undergone.
17. The reference of the judgment rendered in the case of Saudan Singh
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 has also been
made.
Page | 3
18. We have gone through the factual aspect of the aforesaid judgment,
particularly the observation made for consideration of the suspension
of sentence, wherein it has been observed that if there is no likelihood
of conclusion of the trial then, the sentence may be suspended.
19. But, we have not found herein that the applicant has taken any steps
for early hearing of the instant appeal.
20. This Court, taking into consideration the nature of crime as per the
reference made by different witnesses as also the disclosure made in
the confessional statement, is of the view that the it is not a case where
the sentence is to be suspended on the sole ground of sentence of 10
years having been undergone by the applicant.
21. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed.
22. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
23. Before parting with the order, this Court deems it fit and proper to call
from a report from the Member Secretary, JHALSA to be called from
the concerned DLSA with respect to the victim compensation which
has been paid in favour of the victims who have suffered due to murder
of the deceased, husband of the informant-wife.
24. Let the aforesaid report be furnished within four weeks.
25. Let this matter be listed, for the aforesaid purpose, on 17.04.2026.
26. Let the name of Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor be reflected henceforth in the daily cause list.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
13th March, 2026
Saurabh/-
N.A.F.R.
Page | 4
