Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 56 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 4732 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5104 of 2025
---------
1. Ajay Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Late Ramdular Singh,
2. Ujjwal Singh aged about 45 years, son of Rajendra Singh,
3. Bhuneshwar Singh aged about 63 years, son of Late Ramdular
Singh,
4. Ajay Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Late Chandradeo Singh,
5. Vijay Pratap Singh @ Munna aged about 62 years, son of Late
Chandradeo Singh,
6. Rewar Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Ajay Singh,
All residents of Village-Jay Prakash Nagar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-
Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
-----------
th
C.A.V. on: 12 August, 2025 Pronounced on: 20/08/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No. 4732 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5104 of 2025:
1. I.A. No. 4732 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of appellant nos.1, 2,
4, 5 and 6 while the I.A. No. 5104 of 2025 has been filed on behalf
of appellant no.3, as such, both the interlocutory applications are
being heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.
2. These interlocutory applications have been filed on behalf of
appellants under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence in connection with the
Judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2024 and order of sentence
1
dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
VII, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 224 of 2008, in connection with
Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 235 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life
and fine of Rs.10,000/- U/s 302/149 of the I.P.C. and in default of
payment of fine, S.I. for another six months. The appellants have
further been directed to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- U/s 148 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for
another two months.
Factual Matrix:
3. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the
fardbeyan by one Raj Kumar Singh, the informant, read as under:
Raj Kumar Singh has given written report before officer-in-
charge, Dhanbad P.S. stating therein that before 20 days he along
with his brother Sanjay Singh had gone to his purchased land at Jay
Prakash Nagar for fixing gate.
Meanwhile, Ajay Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Sanjay Singh
and Ujjwal Singh came there and threatened them and Ajay Singh
said that he would not allow them to fix gate without permission of
Rajendra bhaiya and asked them to meet Rajendra at the house for
taking permission for any construction there failing which they
would face dire consequences. Due to some important work, they
couldn’t go to meet Rajendra Singh.
It is further alleged that on 03.04.2007 at about 11:00 a.m., he
along with his brother Sanjay Singh, son Neeraj Singh, nephew
2
Reshu Kumar Singh, Shobha Ranjan Singh and Shikha Sinha went tofix the gate on the purchased land at Jay Prakash Nagar.
The accused persons namely Ajay Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh,
Rewat Singh, Ashu Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ujjwal Singh, Ajay Singh
and Bhuneshwar Singh along with 20 to 25 persons were already
present armed with rifle, gun, sword, spear, axe, iron rod etc., who
surrounded them and threatened them for dire consequences as they
didn’t come to meet them even after warning.
Ajay Singh demanded rangdari of Rs.10 lacs and stated that
after the payment of rangdari only he would allow them to fix the
gate on this land.
When the informant’s brother namely Sanjay Singh objected,
Ajay Singh told to his sons and nephews that Rajendra bhaiya and
Binod bhaiya have instructed to kill them and thereafter accused
persons started assaulting the informant party. Vijay Pratap Singh
gave a blow with sword hitting the head of the informant’s brother
due to which his brother fell down bleeding profusely. Then Ajay
Singh started crushing his abdomen with foot and also assaulted him
on his head with iron rod.
The informant and his driver rushed to save the injured, then
Sanjay Singh S/o Rajendra Singh and Ashu Singh assaulted the
driver with iron rod on his head causing head injury and when he
raised alarm, then local people gathered there and the accused
persons fled away.
3
Thereafter, the informant with the help of some people,
brought his brother to police station from where he was sent to Sadar
Hospital, Dhanbad and from there, he was sent to Central Hospital,
Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad for better treatment. Later the injured
succumbed to his injuries.
4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the
appellants. The appellants were charged for offence punishable under
Section U/s 148, 307/149, 384, 302/149 of IPC to which the
appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement
of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the appellants were found guilty
by the learned trial court for the offence under Section U/s 148 and
302/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and
fine of Rs.10,000/- U/s 302/149 of the I.P.C. and in default of
payment of fine, S.I. for another six months.
The appellants have further been directed to undergo R.I. for
two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- U/s 148 of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, S.I. for another two months.
Submission on behalf of the appellants:
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as the
appellant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, they have not moved
earlier before this Court for suspension of sentence while so far as
the appellant no.3 is concerned, submission has been made that
earlier the said appellant has moved before this Court vide I.A. No.
4
2020 of 2025 for suspension of sentence which had been dismissedas withdrawn vide order dated 28.02.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the conviction
is solely based upon the depositions of the interested witnesses
whose statements are inconsistent, hence, their statements are not
reliable.
8. It has also been submitted that if the testimony of P.W.-1 will be
taken into consideration, the statement regarding installation of gate
has not been proved. Further, the alleged plot which the prosecution
parties are claiming to be the owner, is not proved since P.W.-4 has
stated that the said plot belongs to one Rajendra Singh wherein a
school was running and appellants Ajay Singh and Vijay Pratap
Singh were residing in the upper portion of the said house which
suggests that the alleged plot was in possession of the appellants.
9. It has also been submitted that the testimony of P.W.-4 suggests that
the prosecution party after breaking the boundary wall entered the
premises which was resisted by the appellants and the said witness
has not seen any person assaulting the deceased.
10. It has also been submitted that as per the post-mortem report, death
was caused by a hard and blunt force and the doctor has opined that
the said injury cannot be caused by sword.
11. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
any specific overt act against the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 6 and
appellants are languishing in judicial custody since 18.12.2024.
5
12. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so
that the appellants be released from judicial custody.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State:
13. While, on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence of all the appellants.
14. It is submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-8 are trustworthy
and inspire confidence which leaves no doubt that the accused
persons committed the murder of Sanjay Singh.
15. It has further been submitted that they are eye witnesses who were
present at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time. The
accused persons had assaulted the deceased in their presence in
which the accused, namely, Vijay Pratap Singh gave a sword blow
on the head of deceased which caused his head bleeding and he fell
down. Ajay Kumar and other accused persons started assaulting on
his head by means of iron rod and jumping on his abdomen gave a
brick blow on the head of the deceased.
16. It is further stated that PW-11 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia) has
given details of the injuries suffered by the deceased.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of
sentence, as such, both the present interlocutory application may be
rejected.
6
Analysis:
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties.
19.Before adverting to the factual aspect of the instant case this Court
would like to refer the ratio as led by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC
123 wherein it has been held that in cases involving conviction
under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit
of suspension of sentence can be granted, for ready reference the
relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as
under:
“31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra,
(2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195] and Ramji Prasad
v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar
Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1197] , it was
held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under
Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the
benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay
Kumar [Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 1195] , it was held that in considering the prayer
for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder
punishable under Section 302 IPC, the court should consider
the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made
against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged
to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the
desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have
been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder.
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to
see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and
accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which,
ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If
the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the
affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say
that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have
an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept
behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of
the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
7
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal,
what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in
other words, something which is very apparent or gross on
the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can
arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may
not be sustainable. The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC
and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in
the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct
approach.”
20.Thus, it is apparent from perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment that while considering the prayer for bail, in a
case involving a serious offence like murder punishable
under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors
like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they
have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder.
21.It is further evident from perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment that the appellate court should not reappreciate
the evidence at the stage of consideration of suspension of sentence
and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case
of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach and at this
stage Court is only to see the prima facie case for its satisfaction.
22.Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs.
State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed that there is difference
between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of
sentence, post-conviction. In the earlier case, there may be
presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on
the facts and circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-
8
conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a
finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does
not arise. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:
“35. There is a difference between grant of bail under Section
439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of
sentence under Section 389 CrPC and grant of bail, post
conviction. In the earlier case, there may be presumption of
innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal
jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on
the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court
in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v. State of
U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675] However,
in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of
the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of
presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle
of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once
there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court considering
an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is
to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with
other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for
grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by
suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling
reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as
mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC.”
23.Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment, that during
considering the suspension of sentence which is the post-conviction
stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused cannot
be available and at this stage, the Court’s only duty is to see that the
prima-facie case is made out or not and, as such, the detailed
appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court is
now adverting to factual aspect of the case.
25. It is evident from impugned order that the witnesses PW1, PW2,
PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW8 have categorically stated that Sanjay
Kumar Singh (deceased) had died due to assault committed by the
9
accused persons. The doctor, namely, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak
(PW5) has also deposed that he had conducted post-mortem on the
dead body of deceased and according to him, the death was caused
due to head injury.
26. Further, the witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW8 including PW6, the
informant, have stated that the accused persons had assaulted the
deceased. The informant has deposed that he along with his son
Neeraj, younger brother Sanjay Singh, nephew Reshu Singh, Shobha
Ranjan Singh, Shikha Sinha and Mantu Singh had gone for fixing the
gate. When they reached there, Ajay Singh threatened them, who
was accompanied with Vijay Pratap Singh, Ujjwal Singh, Rewat
Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ashu Singh, Bhuneshwar Singh, his brother
Ajay Singh and 20-25 persons and they were armed with gun, rifle,
axe, sword etc. His brother Sanjay went forward and made objection
for demanding rangdari. Ajay Singh told that no any work will be
done here without permission of Binod bhaiya and Rajendra bhaiya.
He will not allow to fix the gate until Rs. 10 lacs are paid. When
Sanjay Singh objected, Ajay Singh started abusing him. Sanjay
Singh forbade him from abusing, then Ajay Singh instructed his
brothers, nephews and others to kill him. When Sanjay turned
behind, Vijay Pratap Singh gave a sword blow to Sanjay on the back
of his head in left side due to which his head got fractured and he fell
down and started bleeding. Ajay Singh stepped on his abdomen and
started crushing and also started assaulting on his head continuously
by means of iron rod.
10
27. The doctor, PW5, Dr. Swapan Kumar Sarak, who conducted the
post-mortem has stated in para-9 that the cause of death was in coma
as a result of hard and blunt force.
28. Further, PW1 who is an eye witness has also deposed that he along
with his father Raj Kumar Singh, uncle Sanjay Singh, cousin brother
Reshu Singh, Shobha Ranjan Singh, Shikha Sinha, Mantu Singh,
driver Gopal had gone to fix the gate at Jay Prakash Nagar. They saw
that Ajay Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Ashu Singh, Rewat Singh,
Sanjay Singh, Ujjwal Singh, Bhuneshwar Singh, Sanjay Singh along
with 20-25 persons were present there armed with lethal weapons.
Meanwhile, Ajay Singh asked Sanjay Singh as to why they have
come to fix the gate without paying rangdari of Rs. 10 lacs to
Rajendra bhaiya and Binod bhaiya. His uncle Sanjay Singh objected
and told why would he pay rangdari to them, then Ajay Singh
challenged to kill his uncle. Thereafter, Vijay Pratap Singh gave a
sword blow on the head of his uncle which caused his head bleeding
and he fell down. Ajay Kumar started assaulting on his uncle’s head
by means of iron rod jumping on his abdomen. When their driver
Gopal came to save him, then Ashu Singh and Sanjay Singh (son of
Rajendra Singh) assaulted him on his head by means of iron rod
which caused bleeding. Ujjwal Singh, Bhuneshwar Singh, Sanjay,
Rewat Singh also assaulted his uncle on his head by means of rod
and pipe.
29. Thus, from the aforesaid testimonies, prima facie, it appears that the
accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly armed with
11
dangerous weapon, attacked the informant party who were fixing
gate on the land.
30. The learned counsel has contended that there is contradiction among
the testimonies of the witnesses, therefore testimonies of the
witnesses should not be relied upon.
31. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the settled position of
law that a witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other
part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies
may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse
of time, mental disposition such as shock at the time of occurrence
and as such the normal discrepancy does not affect the credibility of
a witness. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan
Jagannath Markad & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10
SCC 537.
32. Further, at this stage, as per the settled position of law the deep
appreciation of evidence is not required rather the Court should only
see the prima facie case.
33. Further, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the witnesses who have tried to support the prosecution
case are related witnesses being the family members of informant as
well as of deceased and as such, their evidences are not trustworthy
as they are not material witnesses.
34.In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that a related
witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue
12
of being a relative of the victim. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related”
witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called
interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of
a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that
the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused
punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive
to falsely implicate the accused. Reference in this regard be made to
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. The State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567.
35. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that
in the entire prosecution case it could not have been established by
the prosecution that the informant of the said property whereas the
accused claimed self defence of their property/life on behalf of the
accused persons since it has established by (Exhibit-D/5) that the
property belonged to the accused persons and they were in peaceful
possession of this property (disputed land which is PO) and were
enjoying this property since 1927.
36. In the aforesaid context even if it is assumed that order declaring the
possession of the accused persons had been declared in favour of the
accused persons, the party aggrieved have efficacious legal remedy,
if that order was being violated, and had no right to launch the
murderous attack as such the plea of private defence/self defence is
not available to the appellants. Further at this stage appreciation of
evidence at length is not required since only prima facie case has to
be seen, as such, it cannot be ascertained herein that who was the
13
aggressor party, therefore, the issue of private defence which has
been raised herein, require proper adjudication at the timing of
hearing of appeal.
37. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered view that it is not a fit case where the sentence of the
appellants is to be suspended during pendency of the instant appeal.
38. Accordingly, both the Interlocutory Applications stands dismissed.
39. 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree,
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
14