VIJENDRA RAM vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 28.09.2018 and Order
of sentence dated 05.10.2018, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II-cum-Fast Track Court, Ramgarh, in Sessions
Trial Case No.635 of 2013]

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1356 of 2018
------
Prem Ram, aged about 27 yrs., Son of Pawan Ram @ Baban
Ram, resident of Mauza Sector A, Bokaro Steel City, P.S. &
P.O. - Harla, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand.
… … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1187 of 2018
-----
1. Vijendra Ram, aged about 34 years, Son of Bramhadeo
Ram, resident of Super Colony, Mouza-Cantonment Staff
Quarter, P.S. & P.O. - Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.
2. Subhash Kumar Paswan @ Subhash Kr. Pashwan @
Subhash Paswan, aged about 29 years, Son of Sajan
Paswan, resident of Mouza - Dusadh Mohalla, P.S. & P.O.
- Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
… … Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

With
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1357 of 2018
-----
Arun Ram @ Teniya, aged about 32 yrs. Son of Moti Ram,
resident of Sector 8B, P.S. & P.O. - Harla, District - Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
… … Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
…..
[Cr. Appeal No.1356/2018]
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Ashwini Kr. Upadhyay, Advocate
: Ms. Nutan Sharma, Advocate
1

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
[Cr. Appeal No.1187/2018]
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
[Cr. Appeal No.1357/2018]
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Ashwini Kr. Upadhyay, Advocate
: Ms. Nutan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shestha, Spl. P.P.
…..
C.A.V. on 21.07.2026 Pronounced on 01.09.2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of the same impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence, as such, directed to be
listed together for analogous hearing.
2. All the three appeals are being taken up together.
3. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 28.09.2018 and Order of sentence dated
05.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-
cum-Fast Track Court, Ramgarh, in Sessions Trial Case
No.635 of 2013 whereby and whereunder all the aforesaid
appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable
under section 302 r/w Section 120B of the I.P.C and under
Sections 25(1-B) a/35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act. The
appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine, further S.I. for three months for the offence
302 r/w Section 120B of the I.P.C. Further, the appellants
have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a
2

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,
further S.I. for one month for their conviction under Section
25(1-B) a/35. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine, further S.I. for two months for their
conviction under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.
Prosecution case
4. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation
made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :-
5.
The prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of
informant C/87 Om Prakash Kumar (P.W.-7), recorded by
S.I. Hari Prasad Sah (P.W-9) of Ramgarh P.S. dated
16.08.2013 at 20:45 hours at Appolo Hospital, Irba, Ranchi,
in brief, is that the informant and constable 362 Rajesh
Kumar (P.W.-2) were deputed as a bodyguard of Bablu
Sonkar(deceased). On 21.04.2012 the brother of Bablu
Sonkar namely, Niwas Sonkar was murdered by criminal
Sushil Srivastava with the help of his shooter Reyaz Ansari,
Suraj Singh and Ravi Sardar in broad daylight in front of
Radhey Shyam Cloth Store in Ramgarh Gola road and in
this case the said accused persons are in jail and Bablu
Sonkar is the main eye witness of the case. During the
course of proceeding of the aforesaid case, the members of
gangster Sushil Srivastava namely, Reyaz Ansari, Suraj
Singh and Ravi Sardar had threatened Bablu Sonar that
3

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



how long he would give evidence in the police protection, he
will be also shot dead seeing suitable opportunity. Earlier
the accused persons had sent one miscreant namely, Anand
Sahni at the house of Bablu Sonar to kill him, but he was
apprehended and sent to jail. Thereafter, on the direction of
S.P., two bodyguards were deputed with Bablu Sonkar.
6. It is further alleged that on 12.08.2013 an indefinite
protest was going on in the leadership of Bablu Sonkar at
Ramgarh District Electricity Office, which used to commence
every day at 10:00 a.m. and ended at 05:00 PM. On
16.08.2013, at about 03.00 PM, the then M.P. Yaswant
Sinha, had came at the protest place and after conversation
with the higher officials of the Electricity Department,
protest came to an end at 04.00 PM. Thereafter, Bablu
Sonkar along-with his two body-guards as well as Subodh
Singh went to the Jaldhar Hotel for lunch where one Shiv
Mahto got lunch arranged. Informant and Bablu Sonkar on
one motorcycle and Subodh Singh and Rajesh Kumar were
riding in another motorcycle. They took lunch in the said
Jaldhar hotel and thereafter, Bablu Sonkar asked the
informant to drive the motorcycle. Bablu Sonkar sat behind
the informant on the motorcycle and Rajesh Kumar sat on
the bullet motorcycle of Subodh Singh. Thereafter, they
proceeded towards Naisarai Mor and when they had reached
before about 200 yards of S.D.O. residence gate, in the
4

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



meantime, three miscreants riding on two motorcycles each
came there and started firing upon Bablu Sonkar. Bablu
Sonkar sustained bullet injury and he fell down from the
motorcycle. The motorcycle became unbalance, but anyhow
informant controlled it. After parking the motorcycle, he
wanted to fire from his pistol, but some people came in front
from the opposite side towards the place of occurrence, so,
he could not make fire. Some of the people who gathered
there were talking that shooters of Sushil Srivastava namely,
Amrendra Tiwary, Mukesh Singh, Sanju Singh and other
three miscreants were fleeing towards Naisarai Mor after
making fire. Thereafter, the injured Bablu Sonkar was taken
to Naisarai, CCL, Hospital. After the preliminary treatment
at the CCL Hospital, he was referred to Appollo and was
admitted in ICU in critical condition.
7. Informant claimed that notorious Sushil Srivastava,
Reyaz Ansari, Suraj Singh, Ravi Sardar and Lakhan Sao,
who are in jail, had conspired with Mumtaz Bangali, who
was outside the jail and in a planned manner had sent
shooter Amrendra Tiwary, Mukesh Singh, Sanju Singh and
three others in a motorcycle with intention to kill Bablu
Sonkar, and they had indiscriminately fired on as a result
Bablu Sonkar was badly injured.
8. On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant,
Ramgarh P.S Case No.225/2013 dated 16.08.2013 u/s
5

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



307/326/120(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act
was registered against the accused persons namely, Sushil
Srivastava, Riyaz Ansari, Suraj Singh, Ravi Sardar, Lakhan
Sao, Mumtaz Bangali, Amrendra Tiwary, Mukesh Singh,
Sanju Singh and other three unknown miscreants. After the
death of Bablu Sonkar, section 302 IPC was added in The
FIR.
9. After investigation charge-sheet bearing No.331/13
dated 30.11.2013 under Sections 302/324/326/120(B) of
the I.P.C. against the accused persons namely, Suraj Singh,
Riyaz Ansari, Lakhan Sao, Ravi Sardar, Amrendra Tiwary,
Arun Ram, Prem Ram, Vijendra Ram, Subhash Paswan and
Mumtaz Bangali were submitted and after cognizance of the
offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that the case of Mumtaz
Bangali was separated from the original case record and
opened split up file as S.T. No.635A/13, vide order dated 10-
04-15. Whereas the case record of accused namely, Suraj
Singh was separated from the original case record and
opened split up file as S.T. No.635B/13 vide order dated
12.08.2015 and the case of Amrendra Tiwary and Lakhan
Sao was separated from the original case record and opened
split up file as S.T. No.635C/13 vide order dated
05.02.2018.
6

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




11. Charges under Sections 302/120(B) of the IPC as also
under Sections 25(1B)a/35, 26(1)/35 & 27 of the Arms Act
were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. The learned trial court, on appreciation of the
evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution, has found
the allegation proved beyond all reasonable doubt and
accordingly, passed the judgment of conviction which is
impugned in these appeals.
Argument on behalf of appellants in Cr. Appeal
No.1356/2018 and Cr. Appeal No.1357/2018

13. The following grounds have been taken by the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal
Appeal (DB) Nos. 1356 of 2018 and 1357 of 2018 in
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: -
(i) The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the
charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
(ii) No cogent evidence is available if the testimony of
entire witnesses will be taken into consideration.
(iii) The conviction is based upon the testimony of PW-2
and PW-7 but if the testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 will
be taken into consideration together, then the presence
of PW-2 will be found to be doubtful as per the
7

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



testimony of the PW-7, who is the informant in the
present case.
(iv) It has come in the evidence of the PW-7 that he was
riding the motorcycle and the deceased was the pillion
rider and on another motorcycle PW-2 was going which
was being driven by one Subodh Singh and, as such, it
is quite impossible for PW-2 to see the entire
occurrence for the purpose of identifying the accused
persons.

(v) The pistol has been said to be recovered but if Ext.-4,
which is seizure list of alleged pistol used in
commission of crime and Ext.-9, which is the arms and
ammunition report of the Sergeant Major, will be taken
into consideration, then there is vital contradiction in
the length of the pistol and, as such, the Ext.-9 is not
reliable evidence to be accepted which has been given
reliance for the purpose of passing the judgment of
conviction.
(vi) The investigating officer has stated in his deposition
that he has recorded the statement of the deceased but
very surprisingly that part of the version has not been
taken into consideration by the learned trial court.
(vii) FIR was registered on 16.08.2013 and the same was
sent to the court on 18.08.2013, i.e. after two days
8

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



from the registration of the FIR and these two days
delay has not been explained by the prosecution.
(viii) P.W.-7 Om Prakash Kumar and P.W. -2 Rajesh Kumar
they are claiming that they are the eye witnesses of the
case but neither P.W. -7 nor P.W. -2 have stated in
their deposition that appellants have committed offence
therefore the implication of these appellants is bad in
the eye of the law.
(ix) The search cum seizure list dated 17.08.2013(Ext.-3)
and search cum seizure list dated 26.08.2013(Ext.-4),
have not been proved as the seizure list witnesses
namely Jitendra Chawrasia and Rajkumar Sao as well
as Subash Nayak and Subodh Singh have not been
examined on behalf of the prosecution therefore
implication of these appellants in the instant case or
seizure list is bad in the eye of the law.

(x) P.W. -9 is Hari Prasad Sah who was the part
investigating Officer of this case, it is evident from his
testimony that on 26.08.2013 this appellants were
arrested at the time of making a plan for committing
Dacoity in Ramgarh P.S. case no 235/2013 and these
appellants confessed their involvement in the
commission of the offence of firing upon Bablu Sonkar
therefore on the basis of confession, implication of
9

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



these appellants in the instant case is bad in the eye of
the Law.
(xi) The impugned Judgment is totally illegal on the ground
that there is no cogent and convincing evidence to
show the involvement of these appellants in the alleged
offence and there is no iota of evidence to connect the
appellants in the alleged occurrence in any manner.
(xii) The occurrence was alleged on 16.08.2013 at about
5:30 P.M. but on that very day both witnesses i.e., P.W.
-7 nor P.W. -2, who were claiming that they are the eye
witness, did not identify the accused persons, but on
28.10.2013 when these appellants surrendered before
the court below, then on 07.11.2013, in T.I.P. these
appellants were identified by P.W. -2 and P.W. -7.
Therefore, identification of these appellants in the TIP
creates doubt so implication of these appellants in the
instant case is bad in the eye of law.
(xiii) The Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that
none of the independent witnesses have supported the
case of the prosecution and the case was supported by
only interested witnesses.
Argument on behalf of appellants in Cr. Appeal
No.1187/2018

14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1187 of 2018, in addition to the
10

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



aforesaid grounds, has taken the following grounds in
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: -
(i) The pistol has been said to be recovered from the
house of the appellant Vijendra Ram but save and
except there is no allegation against him, even he has
not been identified in the T.I.P.
(ii) The recovery of the said pistol, as has been argued by
taking the plea in defence in the cases as referred
hereinabove that there is contradiction in Ext.-4 and
Ext.-9.
(iii) The impugned judgment passed by the Court below is
bad in law as well as on facts since it suffers from
improper appreciation of evidence on record hence the
same liable to be set aside.
(iv) The Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants
and sentenced him without application of judicial mind
and relied upon the highly improbable story.
(v) The Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that
none of the independent witnesses have supported the
case of the prosecution and the case was supported by
only interested witnesses.
(vi) The Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that
none of the witnesses had attributed any overt act
upon these appellants and the allegations are general
and omnibus in nature.
11

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




(vii) The Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that
another victim of the alleged occurrence namely Lalu
(@Lalo Devi (P.W.-5), who was also injured, had turned
hostile and did not identify any of the miscreants.
(viii) The Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that
both these appellants were alleged to have
apprehended while they were planning for commission
of robbery and a separate case being Ramgarh P.S.
Case No. 235/2013 was registered and the police
recorded the confessional statement of these two
appellants and on the basis of confessional statement
both of them were made accused, but these
confessions before the police have no evidentiary value
in the eye of law.
(ix) The Learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that
it is alleged that on the basis of confession of appellant
no. 1 Vijendra Ram, one pistol was recovered from his
house, but there is no evidence to connect the
recovered pistol with the crime weapon.
(x) The Learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that
none of the witnesses including the informant also
have not identified these appellants to be perpetrator of
the crime.


12

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Argument on behalf of the State
15. While defending the judgment of conviction learned
counsels appearing for the State have raised the following
arguments in response to the grounds as referred
hereinabove, -
(i) There is direct evidence based upon the testimony of
the eye witness PW-7, who is the informant, who has
narrated the entire prosecution version and
corroborated the same in course of the trial.

(ii) The PW-2 is also an eye witness who all along has
accompanied the deceased along with PW-7 and
corroborated the prosecution version.
(iii) The discrepancy which has been shown in the
argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, the
same cannot be said to be any contradiction since the
measurement which has been conducted as per the
measurement referred in Ext.-4 and if matched with
the ballistic report, i.e., Ext.-9, the pistol is found to be
of the same length which has been used in the
commission of crime.
(iv) So far as Ext.9 is concerned, the same is minor
discrepancy and for which the entire prosecution
version will not be vitiated if the testimony of PW-2 and
PW-7 will be taken into consideration being the eye
13

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



witnesses, who have duly supported the prosecution
version.
(v) Learned counsel appearing for the State, based upon
the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any error,
hence the instant appeals are fit to be dismissed.
Analysis
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused
the documents available on record as also the finding
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment.
17. We have also gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses as available in the LCR as also the exhibits.
18. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced
on behalf of the parties as also the legality and propriety of
the impugned judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
19. Prosecution had examined altogether 18 witnesses out
of whom PW-7 Om Prakash Kumar, is the body guard of
Bablu Sonkar (deceased) and is the informant of this case;
PW-1 Police No.183 Quadir Ansari; P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar is
another body-guard of deceased Bablu Sonkar; P.W.3
Gautam Gope, was declared hostile; P.W.4 Shiv
Kumar;P.W.5 Lalu @ Lalo Devi, is an injured witness, was
declared hostile ; P.W.6 Sushil Sonkar, is the brother of the
14

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



deceased, was declared hostile; PW-8 is ASI Taraknath
Singh; P.W.-9 Hari Prasad Sah is the part Investigating
Officer of the case; PW-10 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary under
whose supervision postmortem examination of the deceased
was conducted by Dr. Kaushal Kishor; PW-11 Dr. Ashok
Giri, had firstly treated the deceased; P.W.-12 Rajendra
Singh is Sergeant Major, P.W.-13 Dharmendra Kumar
st
Singh, is the then Judicial Magistrate, 1 class, Hazaribag
who conducted the T.I.P.; P.W.-14 is A.S.I. Rajesh Kumar

Rai; P.W.-15 Vidyapati Ohdar and P.W.-16 Rameshwar
Bhagat, are also part Investigating Officer of the case;
P.W.17 Sanjay Kumar Singh No.3, is the other Judicial
st
Magistrate, 1 Class, Hazaribag, who had conducted the
T.I.P. and P.W.18 Abraham Hembram, is also one of the part
Investigating Officer of the case.
20. PW-1 Police No.183 Quadir Ansari is the member of
alleged raiding party, who had gone to the house of accused
Vijendra Ram. He has stated in his evidence that occurrence
is of 26.08.2013. At that time, he was posted at Ramgarh
Police Station and he proceeded at 04:20 a.m. alongwith S.I.
Hari Prasad Sah as well as armed force to Sweeper Colony
near football ground and went to the house of accused
Vijendra Ram. They themselves got searched before two
independent witnesses before entering into the house, but
he cannot tell the name of these two independent witnesses.
15

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Red and blue bag was found in the house. In the said bag,
one jean, shirt, one mobile of spice company and one
country-made .315 pistol along-with one pocket note-book
in which address and number of Prem Ram was written was
recovered, which were seized and sealed by making proper
seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses.
Thereafter, one samsung mobile was recovered at about
06.05 hrs, from Sidhu Kanhu ground as per disclosure of
accused Arun Ram, which was also seized by making a
seizure list. At that time, accused Vijendra Ram, Subhash
Paswan and Arun Ram were also present there and the
aforesaid three accused persons confessed that the pistol
which was recovered from the house of Vijendra Ram was
used at the time of firing upon deceased Bablu Sonkar.
21. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that it is not in
his memory that when and on what day he left police station
on 26.08.2013. He is also unable to say the name of other
police force except Hari Prasad Sah and Tara Singh who
were along-with him on that very day. The two independent
witnesses reached at the place of occurrence after 10
minutes of reaching them. He further deposed that whether
any mark was made on the alleged seized pistol and mobile
phone or not is also not in his memory.
22. P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar is the body-guard of deceased
Bablu Sonkar. He has stated in his evidence that occurrence
16

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



is of 16th August, 2013 at about 05:30 p.m. At that time, he
was deputed as a body-guard of Bablu Sonkar. When Bablu
Sonkar came out from the Hazaribag Court room, after
giving his evidence, in murder case of his brother Sri Niwas
Sonkar, then accused Suraj Singh, Riyaz Ansari and Ravi
Sardar, had threatened Bablu Sonkar saying that how long
he will be in the protection of police, he would be shot as
they would get opportunity (kab tak police protection me
rahiyega, mauka dekhkar goli se uda denge). He further
deposed that before the occurrence of aforesaid threatening
one miscreant namely, Anand Sahni was sent at the house
of Bablu Sonkar, who was arrested by the police. Thereafter,
he and Om Prkash Kumar were deputed as body-guards of
Bablu Sonkar. He further deposed that from 12.08.2013 an
indefinite protest was being made against the Electricity
Department in the leadership of Bablu Sonkar and on
16.08.2013 the then Hon'ble M.P. Yaswant Sinha also came
at 03:00 p.m. at the protest place and after making
conversation with the higher officials of the Electricity
Department, protest came to an end at 04.00 p.m. and after
ending protest Bablu Sonkar told Subodh Singh at 04:00
pm that there was arrangement of food at Jaldhar Hotel,
where they went to eat and at about 04:15 hrs reached
there. Thereafter, they came out from the hotel at 05:00
p.m. and he sat on the motorcycle of Subodh Singh and
17

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Bablu Sonkar sat behind his motorcycle and Om Prakash
was riding it. When they were on the way six miscreants on
two motorcycles were also coming behind them. As soon as
motorcycle of Bablu Sonkar, reached near Durga Mandap,
indiscriminate firing was made upon Bablu Sonkar. Bablu
Sonkar sustained bullet injuries and fell down from the
motorcycle along-with his body-guard Om Prakash Kumar.
In the said firing one woman had also sustained bullet
injury on her leg. He further deposed that the people, who
gathered there were talking that shooters of Sushil
Srivastava namely Mukesh Kumar Singh, Amrendra Tiwary,
and Sanju Singh were involved in the said crime. Thereafter,
he also reached there and took out his pistol, but seeing
crowd he did not fire. Thereafter, the injured Bablu Sonkar
was taken to CCL, Hospital on a Maruti Van. Bablu Sonkar
had sustained bullet injuries on his pakhura and panjra
(ribs). After the preliminary treatment at the CCL Hospital,
he was referred to Appollo, Ranchi, where he died in course
of treatment. He further deposed that he saw the six
miscreants who were on the motorcycles and he identified
the accused who were firing. After some days occurrence,
Police had taken him and Om Prakash to the Central Jail,
Hazaribag, in T.I.P. and he had identified the accused
persons who was driving motorcycle at the time of firing and
the accused who had fired.
18

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




23. In his cross-examination, he had stated that at the
time of giving threatening at Civil Court, Hazaribag, accused
persons were alongwith 4-5 police personnel, but he cannot
say the names of police personnel. He also cannot tell the
date and day of threatening at Civil Court, Hazaribag, but
Bablu Sonkar did not inform at the court or case was lodged
or sanha was given at the police station with respect to
threatening. He was alone at the time of giving threatening.
He further deposed that motorcycle was black coloured and
he cannot say the number of the motorcycle. At the time of
firing, he was standing at the distance of 25 yard from the
place of firing. He cannot say on which date he was deputed
as body-guard of Bablu Sonkar. He was not acquainted with
the accused persons prior to the occurrence. He did not
sustain any injury in the said occurrence rather one woman
was injured. Om Prakash Singh did not counter fire. He
further deposed that he went to Hazaribag Central Jail after
20-25 days of the occurrence for identification of the
accused persons along-with Hari Prasad Sah. T.I.P. was
conducted between 12 to 1 P.M., and 15-20 persons were
standing for T.I.P.
24. P.W.-3 Gautam Gope had stated in his evidence that
that occurrence is of 3-4 years ago. He had a hotel in front
of IFCO, New Colony, Minjhar. On the day of occurrence
Shiv Mahto came at his hotel taking 1/2 kg meat and gave
19

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



him for cooking saying that his two or three friends will
come for taking meal and at about 03:00 to 03:30 p.m. four
persons came there along-with Shiv Kumar. He only
identified Shiv Kumar Mahto out of four persons. They took
their meal and thereafter went away from there and
thereafter, a rumour spread that someone was shot at
Naisaray, but he cannot say who was shot.
25. He was declared hostile on behalf of prosecution. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he did not give any
statement before the police.
26. P.W.-4 Shiv Kumar had stated in his evidence that at
the time of occurrence, he was the then City President of
Yuva Morcha, Ramgarh and Bablu Sonkar was City Present
of B.J.P., Ramgarh. He had no knowledge about any
occurrence took place at the house of Bablu Sonkar and
also about the threatening to Bablu Sonkar. He further
deposed that on the date of occurrence at 11A.M., Bablu
Sonkar had told him they are holding protest against the
Electricity Board and had also told him to arrange for meat
and rice, they will take meal. He got food cooked at Jaldhar
hotel on the direction of Bablu Sonkar. Bablu Sonkar came
at 4 A.M., in the evening on two motorcycles with four
people out of which two were bodyguards, Bablu Sonkar
himself and Subodh Singh. After taking meal, they left the
said hotel at about 05:30 P.M. Bablu Sonkar had two body
20

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



guards out of which one was Rajesh Singh and the name of
the other bodyguard, he could not remember. Thereafter,
after 1 hour, rumour spread that Bablu Sonkar was shot by
some miscreants. In his cross-examination, he stated that
his statement was not recorded by the police in this case.
27. P.W.5 Lalu @ Lalo Devi is one of the injured witnesses
to the occurrence. She has deposed in her evidence that
occurrence is of 4-5 years ago. At that time, she was going to
her house after supplying milk to the customers. When she
reached near Durga temple fires began to start, due to
which she sustained bullet injury on her right leg, then she
became senseless and she gained sense at Naisaray
Hospital. She does not know who made fire. She does not
identify the miscreants who made fire. She also does not
know whether her statement was recorded by the police or
not. She was declared hostile on behalf of the prosecution.

28. P.W.6 Sushil Sonkar is the brother of the deceased
Bablu Sonkar. He has stated in his evidence that occurrence
took place on 16.08.2013 at about 05:00 P.M. At that time,
he was taking meal at his house. He heard from his son that
his brother Bablu Sonkar was shot by someone, then, he
reached Naisaray Hospital by motorcycle, where he came to
know that Bablu Sonkar was shot four-five bullets. He was
referred to Apollo Hospital, Irba, Ranchi, then he went there
and saw that his treatment was going on and he was kept in
21

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



CICU and took out from CICU after 39 days and admitted in
a private A/c room. Thereafter, he died on 28.09.2013 at
about 04:05 P.M. He was declared hostile on behalf of the
prosecution.
29. PW-7 Om Prakash Kumar, is the informant of this
case. He had stated in his evidence that occurrence is dated
16th August, 2013 and at that time, he was posted in
Ramgarh District and he was deputed as a body-guard of
Bablu Sonkar, Bhajpa Nagar Adyaksh. Bablu Sonkar had
another body-guard namely Rajesh Kumar was also deputed
with him. From 12.08.2013, an indefinite protest was being
made by the members of B.J.P. against the Electricity
Department at Electricity Office, Subhash Chowk, Ramgarh,
which used to commence every day at 10:00 AM and ended
at 05:00 PM. On 16.08.2013, Hon'ble the then M.P. Yaswant
Sinha also came at 03:00 PM at the protest place and after
making conversation with the higher officials of the
Electricity Department protest came to an end at 04.00 PM.
The protest was being made in the leadership of Bablu
Sonkar and on that very date he was also there and they
were present for his security.
30. Informant further stated that after ending protest
Bablu Sonkar told us that Shiv Mahto had cooked meat and
rice in Jaldhr hotel situated at Bijhar, where they had to go
to eat. Bablu Sonkor sat on a motorcycle and behind him he
22

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



sat. Another motorcycle was being driven by Subodh Singh,
on which police Rajesh sat. They reached at hotel at 04:15
PM. After eating they started to proceed at about 05:00 PM,
then Bablu Sonkar asked him to drive the motorcycle and
Bablu Sonkar sat behind him on the motorcycle and Subodh
Singh who was driving another motorcycle, on which Rajesh
Kumar sat and they proceed from there. In the meantime, a
man who was acquainted with Bablu Sonkar came on Vagon
R at the hotel, then Bablu Sonkar started talking with him
and they were late by 5-10 minutes. Thereafter, they
proceeded 1 to 2 km towards Naisarai Mor and as soon as
they reached before 100 meters of S.D.O. residence he heard
noise " fatak ", it seems as if the wheel of back side burst. He
slowed the motorcycle and saw right side leaning his head,
then he saw three miscreants riding on two motorcycles
each started firing upon Bablu Sonkar. His motorcycle
became unbalanced and Bablu Sonkar fell down from the
motorcycle. Anyhow he stopped the motorcycle, he took out
his pistol, but he saw people gathered in the opposite side
and thus, the miscreants succeeded in fleeing. When firing
was being made Rajesh was some distance from the
motorcycle and he also stopped and immediately came
running there. At that time, it was 05:20 PM . Informant
further deposed that some of the people who gathered there
were talking that shooters of Sushil Srivastava namely
23

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Amrendra Tiwary, Mukesh Singh, Sanju Singh and other
three miscreants were involved in the said crime. Informant
further stated that in course of firing a woman also
sustained bullet injury. Thereafter, he and Rajesh, stopped a
car and the injured Bablu Sonkar was taken to CCL
Hospital, Naisarai, with the help of people on a car. Bablu
Sonkar sustained bullet injuries on right pakhura , near
waist and other places. After the preliminary treatment at
the CCL Hospital, Naisarai, he was referred to Appollo
Hospital, Ranchi and was admitted in ICU and at that time
he was unconscious. He was treated about 1-1½ months,
but later on he died.
31. Informant further stated that the brother of Bablu
Sonkar namely Shri Niwas alias Budulu Patrakar, was killed
in the year 2012, and the said case was running in
Hazaribag Court, in which Bablu Sonkar was eye witness.
When Bablu Sonkar went to Hazaribag to depose, the
miscreants in connection with this case namely Riyaz
Ansari, Suraj Singh and Ravi Sardar had threatened him to
shot dead. Informant further deposed that police came in
Appollo Hospital on 16.08.2013 at 20:45 PM, in the night,
and took his fardbeyan. Informant had identified his
signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.-1. He
had told the police that he could identify the accused
persons on seeing them. He was taken to the Central Jail,
24

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Hazaribag by police for T.I.P. within 1-1½ months, where he
identified the accused who was driving the motorcycle and
the person who sat in the middle and was firing was also
identified by him.
32. PW-8 is ASI Taraknath Singh . He had stated in his
evidence that on the date of occurrence on 26.08.2013, he
was posted at Ramgarh P.S. as constable and on that very
date, at about 05:00 A.M., in the morning, he alongwith the
then SI Hari Prasad Sah and constable Quadir Ansari left
Ramgarh P.S. alongwith apprehended accused Prem Ram,
Subhash Paswan and Arun Ram on a Government vehicle
and raided the house Vijendra Ram situated at Sweeper
Colony near Ramgarh football ground and following the
rules of seizure they entered into the house of Vijendra Ram
in presence of two independent witnesses namely Subhash
Paswan and Subodh Singh, had found blue colour bag
hanging in the hook of the wall, from where one country-
made pistol of .315 bore, two mobile sets and some clothes
were recovered, which were seized by making a seizure list
by Hari Prasad Sah and thereafter, it was sealed the same
was kept in a cloth, upon which accused persons and
independent witnesses put their respective signatures.
Thereafter, one mobile set was recovered from the football
ground on saying of the accused persons which was also
seized by making seizure list. On interrogation, the accused
25

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



persons admitted that the pistol which was recovered from
the house of Vijendra Ram was used in commission of
murder of District BJP President Bablu Sonkar.
33. In his cross-examination, he stated that the family
members of Vijendra Ram were present at the time of
search, but no signature was obtained from the family
member of Vijendra Ram on the seizure list. Signature of the
aforesaid three accused persons namely Vijendra Ram, Arun
Ram and Subhash Paswan were taken on the seizure list. He
has further stated that the bag, spice mobile and pocket
diary which were recovered and seized from the house of
Vijendra Ram were not before him in the Court.
34. P.W.9 Hari Prasad Sah is the part Investigating Officer
of this case. He had stated in his evidence that on
16.08.2013, he was posted at Ramgarh as S.I. On that very
date, at about 17:33 hrs, he was informed by constable 87
Om Prakash Kumar on telephone that Bablu Sonkar was
shot near Naisaray Hospital, then, after entering the said
information as sanha no.374 in the thana dainiki he rushed
to Naisaray CCL Hospital along-with Chandrika Prasad, the
then in-charge Ramgarh P.S. and armed forces. On reaching
the Hospital, he found Bablu Sonkar in emergency ward,
where he was crying and shouting saying that save him,
save him ( bachaiya-bachaiye ). At that time blood was also
oozing from his waist, ribs ( panjra ) and thigh etc. After
26

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



preliminary treatment, he was referred to higher center
/RIMS at once for his better treatment. Thereafter, injured
Bablu Sonkar was admitted at Appollo, Ranchi, by his elder
brothers and his family members and his body guards
constable no.87 Om Prakash Kumar and constable no.362
Rajesh Kumar were also with him. Thereafter he also
reached at Appollo Hospital as per direction of the then Dy.
S.P., Ramgarh, where he recorded the fardbeyan of his body
guard constable 87 Om Prakash Kumar at 20:45 hours. He
has proved his signature and signature of informant Om
Prakash Kumar, on the fardbeyan. The fardbeyan was
marked as Ext.-1/1. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan
of the informant, a case u/s 307, 326/120B IPC & 27 Arms
Act was registered and he started the investigation of this
case. He recorded the statement of the injured Bablu
Sonkar, who was then admitted in ICU, Apollo Hospital.
Bablu Sonkar had stated in his statement before him that at
Hazaribag Court, he had given his evidence in Ramgarh P.S.
case no.112/12, which relates to murder case of his brother
Srinivas Sonkar and outside the court, he was threatened by
accused Riyaz Ansari, Suraj Singh and Ravi Sardar saying to
withdraw the case, otherwise he will face such consequences
as faced by his brother ( case utha lo warna wahi anjam hoga
jo tumhare bhai ka kiya hai ) and one week of that
threatening accused Shankar Karmali, Sanju Singh and
27

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Arun Ram, came at his house and told him that they had
come at his house as per direction of their boss Sushil
Srivastava and their boss Sushil Srivastava had directed to
withdraw case after taking Rs.10,00,000/- and when he
refused to withdraw the case, then the aforesaid accused
persons went away after giving threatening to face
consequences.
35. He further stated that Bablu Sonkar also told in his
statement before him that on 16.08.2013, at the time of
occurrence, accused Shankar Karmali, Sanju Singh and
Arun Ram fired upon him. He could not tell the name of
other three miscreants who were on other motorcycle. Bablu
Sonkar also told him that he could not talk about the
occurrence further because he was feeling trouble in
breathing. He further deposed that he recorded the re-
statement of the informant constable 87 Om Prakash Kumar
in course of investigation who fully supported the FIR and
occurrence. Thereafter, he returned back at Ramgar P.S, at
about 11:00 p.m. from Apollo Hospital, where a formal FIR
was drawn as Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13. He has
identified the writing and signature of then S.I. Chandrika
Prasad on endorsement of the case, which has been marked
as Ext.-1/2. He has proved formal FIR, search-cum-seizure
list dated 17.08.2013 prepared at 06:45 p.m. and search-
28

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



cum-seizure list dated 26.08.2013 at 05:15 a.m., which have
been marked as Exts. -2, 3 and 4 respectively.
36. He further deposed that he inspected the place of
occurrence on 17.08.2013 at 06:30 a.m. The place of
occurrence is situated at the bank of pitch road which goes
to Naisaray Mor from Giddi within Ramgarh Police Station.
In course of inspection of the place of occurrence, he found
one empty cartridge of .315 bore, one empty cartridge of 9
mm and one empty cartridge of 7.62 mm were found with
firing mark on its firing point in the bottom of the aforesaid
empty cartridges which were seized in presence of
independent witnesses namely, Jitendra Chourasiya and
Rajkumar Sao by making a seizure list by marking A of .315
bore of the said empty cartridges, by marking B of the said
9mm and by marking C of 7.62 mm cartridges and
thereafter sealed them in presence of the aforesaid
independent witnesses. He further deposed that in course of
investigation, he also received preliminary injury
examination report of Bablu Sonkar from CCL Hospital,
Naisaray. Thereafter, on 21.08.2013 he recorded the
confessional statement of accused Suraj Singh. On
24.08.2013, he produced the materials seized from the place
of occurrence before the Court. Thereafter, he recorded the
confessional statement of Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram and
Subhash Paswan who were arrested on 26.08.2013 at the
29

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



time of making a plan for committing dacoity in Ramgarh
P.S. Case no.235/13, in which they have confessed their
involvement in the commission of offence of firing on Bablu
Sonkar. They also disclosed that the pistol which was used
by accused Arun Ram in the commission of murder of Bablu
Sonkar has been kept in the house Vijendra Ram situated at
Canton Sweeper Colony, which may be recovered from there.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of Vijendra Ram on
26.08.2013 at about 05:15 a.m. alongwith accused Arun
Ram, Vijendra Ram and Subhash Paswan and the house of
the Vijendra Ram was searched in presence of two
independent witnesses namely Subhash Nayak and Subodh
Singh and in the said search, a blue colour pithu bag
hanging in the corner of the wall of the house was recovered,
from which a country-made pistol of .315 bore, was
recovered which was seized by making a proper seizure list
in presence of two independent witnesses and the aforesaid
three accused persons namely Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram and
Subhash Paswan. They also put their respective signatures
on it and one copy of the said seizure list was given to each
of the accused persons who put their respective signatures
on it. On 27.08.2013 he filed a petition before the Court for
mechanical examination of seized country made pistol of
.315 bore by Sergeant Major, Police Centre, Hazaribag. On
28.08.2013, he received examination report of seized pistol
30

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



of .315 bore by Sergeant Major, which bears the signature of
Sergeant Major Rajendra Singh, which was marked as Ext.9.
37. PW-9 in his cross-examination, had stated that he took
over charge of investigation of the case at Apollo Hospital
and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant constable 87
Om Prakash Kumar at 20:45 hrs at Apollo Hospital. He did
not record statement of any staff of the Hospital. When he
reached at Apollo Hospital from the place of occurrence
Bablu Sonkar was admitted in ICU. At that time no patient
was admitted except Bablu Sonkar in ICU. Bablu Sonkar
was not at ventilator at the time of recording of his
statement. He had neither put his signature on inspection
register of Hospital nor took permission from the Doctor of
the Hospital before recording statement of Bablu Sonkar.
Bablu Sonkar was not in life support system at the time of
recording his statement. He did not make any map of the
place of occurrence and did not record the statement of the
witness of inquest report. He did not seize bloodstained soil
from the place of occurrence. The seized articles were not
before him in the Court. He had sent only Exts. A & D to
F.S.L. for comparative examination out of the seized articles.
He did not give any M.R. number of the seized materials.
38. PW-10 Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary under whose
supervision postmortem examination of the deceased was
conducted by Dr. Kaushal Kishor. He had proved
31

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



postmortem examination report of the deceased Bablu
Sonkar which has been marked as Ext-10 in this case. He
had deposed that on 28th of September 2013, he was posted
as Professor and head of department and Dr. Kaushal
Kishor junior resident academic in the department of
Forensic Medicine RIMS Ranchi and on that very day at
22:30 hrs. postmortem examination was conducted by
Kaushal Kishor under my supervision and it was conducted
at night by the order of DC Ranchi vide memo no. 918,
dated 28.09.2013 over the dead body of Bablu Sonkar s/o-
Ashok Sonkar of vill- Golpar, Chatti Bazar, Ramgarh P.S. +
Distt. Ramgarh male aged about 38 yrs. He found the
following: -
(a) The body was as average build, rigor mortis present
over the body, abdomen was not distended, cornea
hazy, tracheostomy done
Recently healed scar-
(1) 1 & 1/2 X 1 cm on back of right arm upper part
situated 12 cm below top of right shoulder underneath
there was fracture of right clavicle in which the healing
process was in progress and there was presence of pus
in right chest cavity.
(2) 1 X 1/2 cm on lateral side of right chest lower part
situated 18 cm on right to midline and 10 cm above the
umbilicus underline soft tissue are healed
32

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



(3) 1cm X 1cm on lateral side of right abdomen lower
part situated 3 cm above the right iliaccrest the
underline soft tissue were healed
(4) 1 X 1cm on left abdomen front and lower part
situated 7 cm left to midline and 5 cm below the level of
umbilicus. The underline tissue were healed
(5) Stitched wound 1 X 1/2cm which two stitches on left
chest lateral side middle part situated 15 cm below left
axilla and 19 cm left midline underneath there was
fracture of 6th rib and hence were in healing process
(6) 2 X 1&1/2cm on anterior side of upper part of right
thigh situated 8 cm below anterior superior iliac spine.
The underline soft tissue were healed. There was
another recently healed scarf 1 X 1/2 cm on
anteromedial side of right thigh of middle part. Surgical
stitched wound. 29 cm long which 28 stitched mark
(stitched were removed and wound was healed) on right
posterolateral side of chest situated 10 cm below the
right axilla and extending from anterior part of right
chest. There was sloughing wound 2 X 2 cm on right
chest lateral side 10 cm below the right nipple and 17
cm from midline. The underline track was upto chest
cavity with presence of pus in right chest cavity and
right lung is adherent to right chest wall
Opinion -:
(1) The above noted injuries were antimortem
(2) opinion regarding original nature of wound can be
obtained from the Surgeon concerned who has firstly
attended a case and the surgeon who operated and
treated the case.
33

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



(3) Death was due to septicemia as a result of above
noted injuries.
(4) Time elapsed since death was between 3 to 12 hrs.
from the time of postmortem examination.
39. PW-11 Dr. Ashok Giri, had firstly treated the
deceased. He had stated in his evidence that on 16.08.2013,
he was posted as medical officer at Naisarai Hospital and
nd
was on 2 shift duty at 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM. A patient
namely Bablu Sonkar was brought at hospital by local
people as well as police personnel before him at 5:30 PM and
he started medical treatment as instructed by his senior
specialist Dr. Mithilesh Prasad. After initial management
patient was referred to higher center considering critical
condition of patient. During the treatment, he had found
following injuries on the person:-
(a) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
posterior side of right shoulder
(b) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
right side of upper abdomen
(c) Lacerated wound about 3 cm on the right side of
lower abdomen
(d) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
lateral side of right upper thigh
(e) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 3/3 cm on the
medial side of right upper thigh
Mark of Identification : black mole on left side of
chest, two inches below left axilla.
34

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




40. PW-11 had further stated in his evidence that on same
day (i.e.16.08.2013), Lalo Devi also came to Naisarai
Hospital and according to the patient a bullet from primary
source came and hit at her joint area. She was also provided
first-aid and sent home.
Wound details :
(a) One injury on the right ankle as abrasion injury.
41. Doctor PW-11 has proved injury report of Bablu
Sonkar which has been marked as Ext-12 and injury report
of Lalo Devi which has been marked as Ext.-13 in this case.
42. Doctor PW-11 in his cross-examination, had
stated that there is no seal in the injury report of the CCL
Hospital Naisarai. He has not mentioned registration no. of
the injury report and the time of departure of injured. He
has also not mentioned colour of injury on the injury report.
Both injuries report prepared by him in different date and
time.
43. P.W.-12 Rajendra Singh, is Sergeant Major. He had
stated in his evidence that on 28.08.2013 he was posted at
the post of Sergeant Major, Hazaribag and on that day, the
seized materials of Ramarh P.S. Case no.225/13 dated
16.08.2013 was produced before him in a sealed form in
white colour markin cloth by the investigating officer Hari
Prasad Sah in compliance of order of the S.D.J.M.,
Hazaribag. After unsealing the said sealed materials, one
35

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



country-made pistol of length 30.9 cm bearing P.S. Case
number and marked 'D' was found. At the time of testing, it
was found that .315 bore cartridges may be easily inserted
in it. At the time of testing its trigger, it was found that fire
may be made from it. He has proved his examination report,
which has been marked as Ext.-9.
44. P.W.13 Dharmendra Kumar Singh , is the then
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 class, Hazaribag, who conducted the
TIP of the suspects of Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13. He
had stated in his evidence that on 07.11.2013, he had
conducted T.I.P. of the suspect Prem Ram s/o Baban Ram of
Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13 u/s 302, 307, 326, 120B IPC
& 27 Arms Act at Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central
Jail, Hazaribag and in that T.I.P., witness constable 87 Om
Prakash and constable 362 Rajesh Kumar, both had
identified the accused Prem Ram as a miscreant who was
driving the said motorcycle from which fires were being
made. He has proved T.I.P. chart dated 07.11.2013, which
has been marked as Ext.-14.
45. P.W.-14 A.S.I. Rajesh Kumar Rai , is the formal
witness, who had produced seized material exhibits of
Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13. He had produced two
separate sealed form materials one having F.S.L.
no.1086/13 dated 15.09.2016 and initial signature of
AD/SSO balletic and other sealed form material having
36

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13 G.R. no.2733/13 sealed by
S.D.J.M. on 07.08.2013. On being opened first sealed cover
materials, one country-made pistol on which Ramgarh P.S.
Case no.225/13 dated 16.08.2013 and F.S.L. no.1086/13
marked 'D', was written, which has been marked as material
Ext.-I in this case. In the aforesaid sealed materials, two
envelopes were also found upon which marked 'A' & 'D' were
written and when mark 'A' envelope was opened, one empty
cartridge of .315 bore bearing no. S.F.L. no.1046/13 was
found and in the other envelope marked 'D’, also one empty
cartridge of .315 bore was found and both the envelop were
marked as material Exts. II & III respectively.
46. PW-14 in his cross-examination, had stated that both
the empty cartridges have neither signature of any police
officer, independent witnesses nor bears M.R. number nor
bears P.S. case number. He further deposed that the markin
cloth of the seized exhibit has neither seal of S.F.L. nor M.R.
number.
47. P.W.-15 Vidyapati Ohdar , is also one of the parts
investigating officer of this case. She had stated in her
evidence that she neither recorded the statement of any
witness nor recorded defence statement of any accused in
course of investigation.
48. P.W.16 Rameshwar Bhagat is also another part
investigating officer of this case. He had submitted the
37

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



supplementary charge-sheet bearing no.05/18 against the
accused Suraj Singh, Lakhan Sao, Prem Ram, Arun Ram,
Amrendra Tiwary, Mumtaz Bangali, Vijendra Ram, Subhash
Paswan, Riyaz Ansari, Ravi Sardar and Shankar Karmali
u/s 25(1-b) a, 26/35/27 Arms Act keeping the investigation
going against the accused Sanju Singh @ Sanjay Singh @
Sanjeev and Mukesh Singh.
49. P.W.17 Sanjay Kumar Singh No.3 , is the then
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Hazaribag, who had
conducted the T.I.P. of the suspects of Ramgarh P.S. Case
no.225/13. He had stated in his evidence that on
20.07.2013 he had conducted T.I.P. of the suspect Arun
Ram @ Teniya s/o Moti Ram in G.R. Case no.2737 at
Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribag.
Constable 87 Om Prakash and constable 362 Rajesh Kumar
identified the accused Arun Ram @ Teniya as a miscreant
who was firing from the motorcycle. This witness has proved
T.I.P. chart dated 20.09.2013 which has been marked as
Ext.-14.
50. P.W.18 Abraham Hembram is also one of the part
investigating officer of this case. He has deposed that he
took over the charge of the supplementary investigation of
Ramgarh P.S. Case no.225/13 on 01.03.2015 and in course
of investigation, he received F.S.L. report from Ranchi State
Forensic Laboratory and attached it with the case diary.
38

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




51. Apart from the above oral evidences, the prosecution
has also produced and exhibited the following documents as
documentary evidence in support of its case:-
Ext.-1: Fard-beyan of the informant namely, Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7)
Ext.-1/1: Signature of Hari Prasad Sah (PW-9) on the
fardbeyan of the informant
Ext-1/2: Endorsement of the case
Ext.-2: Formal FIR
Ext.-3: Search-cum-seizure list dated 17.08.2013
prepared at 6:45 hrs.
Ext-4: Search-cum-seizure list dated 26.08.2013
prepared at 5:15 hrs.
Ext.-5: confessional statement of accused Arun Ram @
Teni dated 26.08.2013 recorded at 00:15 hrs. at
Ramgarh police station
Ext-6: Confessional statement of accused Vijendra Ram
dated 26.08.2013 recorded at Ramgarh police station
1:00 hrs.
Ext.-7: Confessional statement of accused Subhash
Kumar Paswan dated 26-08-2013 recorded at 02:00
hrs. at Ramgarh police station
Ext.-8: Seizure list dated 26.08.2013 prepared at 06:05
a.m.
Ext.-9: Arms and ammunition report of the Surgeant
Major
Ext.-10: Inquest report of deceased Bablu Sonkar
Ext.-11: Postmortem examination report of the deceased
Bablu Sonkar
Ext.-12: Injury report of the deceased Bablu Sonkar
Ext.-13: Injury report of Lalo Devi
Ext.-14: T.I.P. chart dated 07.11.2013
Ext.-15: T.I.P. chart dated 20.09.2013
Ext.-16: Sanction for prosecution order dated
04.12.2013 of the Dy. Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Ramgarh
Ext.-16/1: Sanction for prosecution order dated
02.12.2017 of the Dy. Commissioner-cum-District
Magistrate, Ramgarh
Ext.-17: F.S.L. report dated 09.09.2016
39

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Ext.-18: Death-cum-injury report dated 28.09.2013
issued by Apollo Hospital Ranchi
52. Prosecution had also produced and material exhibited
as material exhibits in support of its case which are as
follows:-
Material Ext.-I: A country-made pistol
Material Ext.- II: An empty cartridge of .315 bore
Material Ext.- III: An empty cartridge of .315 bore
Material Ext.- IV: Mobile set of spice company
Material Ext.- V: Mobile set of Samsung company
Material Ext.- VI: A red and blue pithu bag
Material Ext.- VII: One note book
Material Ext.- VIII: One note book
Material Ext.- IX: One note book
Material Ext-X: One note book and shirts
Material Ext.- XI: Full pants, half ganjis (banyans), full
T-shirt.
53. Learned trial court, based upon the testimonies of eye
witnesses, referred hereinabove, has passed the judgment of
conviction convicting the appellants under Section 302 r/w
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
25(1-B)a/35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced as
aforesaid.
54. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect vis-
à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now
proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by
formulating following questions to be answered by this

Court:
40

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




i. Whether the witnesses PW-3 and PW-5(injured
witness), turning hostile, their evidence shall be
discarded as a whole?
ii. Whether there is delay in forwarding the F.I.R to Court
i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was not complied?
iii. Whether the two body guards Om Prakash Kumar (PW-
7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), were present at the place
and time of occurrence and had witnessed the
incidence of firing on Bablu Sonkar(deceased), by the
accused persons/appellants?
iv. Whether Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) and the informant Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7), who were the body guard of
the deceased, had identified the appellants firing on
the deceased at the place of occurrence?
v. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 25(1-B) a / 27(1) / 35 of the Arms Act, beyond
the reasonable doubt.
Re: Issue No.(i)
55. The first issue is whether the witnesses PW-3 and PW-
5 (injured witness), turning hostile, their evidence shall be
discarded as a whole?
56. In the present case Gautam Gope (P.W.-3) and Lalu @
Lalo Devi (P.W.-5), were declared hostile. Gautam Gope
(P.W.-3) is the owner of hotel, where as per the prosecution
case, Bablu Sonkar(deceased), along with his two body
gaurds Om Prakash Kumar (informant PW-7) and Rajesh
Kumar (PW-2), and one Subodh Singh had eaten food, before
41

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



the incidence of firing on Bablu Sonkar, and after eating
they had proceeded from the hotel and on the way incidence
of firing on Bablu Sonkar took place. Lalu @ Lalo Devi(P.W.-
5), was also injured in firing, when she was going to her
house after supplying milk to the customers.
57. At this juncture it would be pertinent to see the
judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue
of hostile witness. The law is well settled that merely
because the witness is declared as hostile, whole of his

evidence is not liable to be thrown away.
58. In case of Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra ,
(2013) 11 SCC 719 , Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely
because a witness becomes hostile it would not result in
throwing out the prosecution case, but the court must see
the relative effect of his testimony. If the evidence of a hostile
witness is corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal
bar to convict the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court further
held that testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable to the
extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness. It is,
therefore, open to the court to consider the evidence and
there is no objection to a part of that evidence being made
use of in support of the prosecution or in support of the
accused. Paragraph-14 to 17 of this judgment is quoted
herein below-
42

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



“14. We have meticulously considered the arguments
advanced on this vital aspect of the matter on which
the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
is based. This compels us to consider as to whether
the conviction and sentence recorded on the basis of
the testimony of the witness who has been declared
hostile could be relied upon for recording conviction of
the appellant-accused. But it was difficult to overlook
the relevance and value of the evidence of even a
hostile witness while considering as to what extent
their evidence could be allowed to be relied upon and
used by the prosecution. It could not be ignored that
when a witness is declared hostile and when his
testimony is not shaken on material points in the
cross-examination, there is no ground to reject his
testimony in toto as it is well settled by a catena of
decisions that the court is not precluded from taking
into account the statement of a hostile witness
altogether and it is not necessary to discard the same
in toto and can be relied upon partly. If some portion
of the statement of the hostile witness inspires
confidence, it can be relied upon. He cannot be thrown
out as wholly unreliable. This was the view expressed
by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of
Karnataka [(1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 59]
whereby the learned Judges of the Supreme Court
reversed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court
which had discarded the evidence of a hostile witness
in its entirety.
15. Similarly, other High Courts in Gulshan
Kumar v. State [1993 Cri LJ 1525 (Del)] as
also Kunwar v. State of U.P. [1993 Cri LJ 3421 (All)]
as also Haneefa v. State [1993 Cri LJ 2125 (Ker)] have
held that it is not necessary to discard the evidence of
the hostile witness in toto and can be relied upon
partly. So also, in State of U.P. v. Chet Ram [(1989) 2
SCC 425 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 388 : AIR 1989 SC 1543 :
1989 Cri LJ 1785] , it was held that if some portion of
43

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



the statement of the hostile witness inspires
confidence it can be relied upon and the witness
cannot be termed as wholly unreliable. It was further
categorically held in Shatrughan v. State of M.P. [1993
Cri LJ 120 (MP)] that hostile witness is not necessarily
a false witness. Granting of a permission by the court
to cross-examine his own witness does not amount to
adjudication by the court as to the veracity of a
witness. It only means a declaration that the witness
is adverse or unfriendly to the party calling him and
not that the witness is untruthful. This was the view
expressed by this Court in Sat Paul v. Delhi
Admn. [(1976) 1 SCC 727 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR
1976 SC 294]
16. Thus, merely because a witness becomes hostile
it would not result in throwing out the prosecution
case, but the court must see the relative effect of his
testimony. If the evidence of a hostile witness is
corroborated by other evidence, there is no legal bar to
convict the accused. Thus testimony of a hostile
witness is acceptable to the extent it is corroborated
by that of a reliable witness. It is, therefore, open to
the court to consider the evidence and there is no
objection to a part of that evidence being made use of
in support of the prosecution or in support of the
accused.
17. While examining the instant matter on the anvil of
the aforesaid legal position laid down by this Court in
several pronouncements, we have noticed that the
support rendered by the daughter Mangibai approving
the incident should be accepted as reliable part of
evidence in spite of she being a hostile witness. The
witness Mangibai's evidence pushes the accused with
his bag to the wall and the accused is obliged to
explain because her evidence shows that the accused
was the only person in the company of the deceased
soon before the death. The defence of the accused that
Nagibai's injury was a result of fall is ruled out by
44

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



medical evidence and the details available of the
location in the panchnama of offence. The courts
below thus have rightly drawn some support from the
reports of the chemical analysis since all the articles
of the victims and clothes of the accused are found
having bloodstains of human Blood Group A. This was
in view of the fact that the results of the analysis for
determination of the blood group of the victim and
accused were conclusive when blood sent in phial
was analysed. Thus, the evidence of the daughter of
the deceased coupled with other material as also
evidence of other witnesses i.e. Ramesh, Khandu,
Bhatu and Makhan, provided a complete chain and
the prosecution successfully proved that the incident
occurred in the manner and the place which was
alleged.”
59. Again, in case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) ,
(2023) 4 SCC 731 Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if a
witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined, his
evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be
considered with due care and circumspection and that part
of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered
and acted upon. Relevant paragraph of this judgment is
quoted herein below-
“87. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a
witness is treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined,
his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must
be considered with due care and circumspection and
that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must
be considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a
matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence
which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the
case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been
declared “hostile” does not result in an automatic
45

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a
“hostile witness” if it finds corroboration from the facts
of the case may be taken into account while judging
the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to
raise a conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.”
60. Again, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.
Muniappan and Ors v. State of T. N , (2010) 9 SCC 567,
reiterated that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are
admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the
defence. Paragraph 81 to 83 of this judgment is quoted
herein below-
“81. It is settled legal proposition that:
“6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose
to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The
evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the
same can be accepted to the extent their version is
found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”
43
(Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana ,
44
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa , Syad
45
Akbar v. State of Karnataka and Khujji v. State of
46
M.P. , SCC p. 635, para 6.)
47
82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra this
Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a
hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken
in favour of the prosecution or the accused but
required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that
portion of the evidence which is consistent with the
case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon.
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
46

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



48
Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra , Gagan
49
Kanojia v. State of Punjab , Radha Mohan Singh v.
50
State of U.P. , Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga
51 52
Singh and Subbu Singh v. State .
83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect
that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof
which are admissible in law, can be used by the
prosecution or the defence.”
61. Reverting back to the present case, Gautam Gope
(P.W.-3) had stated in his examination-in-chief that he has a
hotel in front of IFCO, New Colony, Binjhar and on the day
of occurrence, Shiv Mahto (P.W.-4) came at his hotel taking
1/2 kg meat and gave him for cooking saying that his two or
three friends will come for taking meal and at about 03:00 to
03:30 p.m. four persons came there along-with Shiv Kumar.
They took their meal and thereafter went away from there
and after sometime rumour spread that someone was shot
at Naisaray.
62. This Court finds that the testimony of Gautam Gope
(P.W.-3) that on the day of occurrence, Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), had come to his hotel, finds corroboration
from the evidence of Shiv Kumar (P.W.-4). Shiv Kumar (P.W.-
4) had stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence
he got food cooked at Jaldhar hotel on the direction of Bablu
Sonkar and Bablu Sonkar came at 4 A.M., in the evening on
two motorcycles with four people out of which two were
47

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



bodyguards, Bablu Sonkar himself and Subodh Singh. After
taking meal, they left the said hotel at about 05:30 P.M.
63. Further, Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.-5) had stated in her
examination-in-chief that on the date and time of
occurrence, she was going to her house after supplying milk
to the customers. When she reached near Durga temple fires
began to start, due to which she sustained bullet injury on
her right leg, then she became senseless and she gained
sense at Naisaray Hospital. She does not know who fired.
She was declared hostile on the point of identification of the
accused persons.
64. The testimony of Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.-5) that she had
sustained injury, is corroborated from the testimony of the
Dr. Ashok Giri (P.W.-11), who had treated the victim Lalo
Devi (P.W.-5), at Naisarai Hospital.
65. Dr. Ashok Giri (P.W.-11), had stated in his evidence
that on 16.08.2013, Lalo Devi (PW-5) had come to Naisarai
Hospital and he had provided first-aid to her and sent her
home. Dr. Ashok Giri had found one injury on the right
ankle as abrasion injury on the body of Lalo Devi (PW-5).
66. Hence, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on the issue of hostile witness, as referred in the
preceding paragraph, it is considered view of this Court that
in the present case, testimony of Gautam Gope (P.W.-3), as
48

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



stated by him in his examination-in-chief, to the extent that
on the day of occurrence Bablu Sonkar(deceased) along with
his two body guard and one Subodh Singh had come to his
Hotel and after eating food Bablu Sonkar(deceased) had
proceeded, which finds corroboration from the testimony of
Shiv Kumar (P.W.-4), and the same can be taken into
account as an evidence, as it supports the prosecution case
to this extent.
67. Again, the testimony of injured Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.-
5), as stated by her in her examination-in-chief that
incidence of firing took place in the evening of the date of
occurrence, can be taken into account as evidence, as it
supports the prosecution case to this extent.
68. Accordingly, issue no.(i), has been answered.
Re: Issue No.(ii)
69. The issue no.(ii) is whether there is delay in forwarding
the F.I.R to Court i.e. requirement of section 157 CrPC was
not complied?
70. In this learned counsel for the appellants had
submitted that FIR was registered on 16.08.2013 and the
same was sent to the court on 18.08.2013, i.e. after two
days from the registration of the FIR and these two days
delay has not been explained by the prosecution.
49

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




71. In this regard this Court finds that after the
indiscriminate firing by the miscreants on Bablu Sonkar
(deceased), he was badly injured, and Bablu Sonkar was
taken to Naisarai CCL Hospital, were he was firstly treated
by Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11).
72. Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11) had stated in his evidence that
Bablu Sonkar(deceased) was brought at the hospital before
him at 5.30 PM and he had given initial medical treatment
to Bablu Sonkar and patient was referred to higher center
considering critical condition of patient.
73. Further, in the evidence it has come that Bablu Sonkar
was taken to Apollo Hospital, Ranchi, where the fardbeyan of
the informant PW-7 was recorded by the investigating Officer
Hari Prasad Sah (PW-9), at 20.45 hrs i.e. at 8.45 PM on
16.08.2013, in the night.
74. On going to the formal FIR Ext.-2, this Court finds that
FIR was registered on 16.08.2013 at 11PM, in the night.
75. At this juncture it would be pertinent to note the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue of sending the
special report to the Magistrate as required under section
157 CrPC. The issue of sending the special report to the
Magistrate as required under section 157 CrPC was dealt by
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ravi Kumar v. State of
Punjab, (2005) 9 SCC 315 and paragraph-16 of this
judgment is quoted herein below-
50

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



“16. Sending the copy of the special report to the
Magistrate as required under Section 157 CrPC is the only
external check on the working of the police agency,
imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed.
The delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not
render the whole of the case of the prosecution as
doubtful but shall put the court on guard to find out as to
whether the version as stated in the court was the same
version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of
deliberations involving some other persons who were
actually not involved in the commission of the crime.
Immediate sending of the report mentioned in Section 157
CrPC is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is
required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is
reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn
but failure to explain the delay would require the court to
minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring
itself as to whether any innocent person has been
implicated in the crime or not.”
76. Hence, in Ravi Kumar (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court
has laid down that delay wherever found is required to be
explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably
explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to
explain the delay would require the court to minutely
examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to
whether any innocent person has been implicated in the
crime or not.
77. In the present case on going to the evidence of
investigating Officer Hari Prasad Sah (P.W.-9), this Court
finds that investigating Officer had stated in his evidence
that during investigation, he had inspected the place of
occurrence on 17.08.2013 at 6.30 AM in the morning.
51

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Relevant paragraph of the deposition of the investigating
Officer(PW-9) is as follow-
“10. अनुसंधान के कम में घटना के समय से सुरक्षित करके रखे गये घटना
स्थल का क्षनरीिण क्षिनांक 17.08.2013 को 6:30 बजे प्रातः मेरे द्वारा क्षकया
गया।“
78. Hence, in the present case, incident of indiscriminate
firing on deceased, occurred in the evening of 16.08.2013,
and thereafter, deceased was admitted in Hospital where
faradayan of the deceased was recorded on 16.08.2013 at
8.45 PM, in the night and thereafter, FIR was registered on
16.08.2013 at 11PM, in the night and on the next day of
occurrence i.e. on 17.08.2013 at 6.30 AM, in the morning,
investigating Officer (PW-9), had gone to the place of
occurrence for investigation.
79. Hence, under such circumstances, allegation of the
defence that delay of two days in sending the FIR to the
Court has not been explained by the prosecution, has no leg
to stand. Instead, in the present case prosecution has
reasonably explained the delay of two days in forwarding the
FIR to the court concerned.
80. Accordingly, issue no(ii) has been answered.
Re: Issue No.(iii)
81. The issue no. (iii) is whether the two body guards Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), were
present at the place and time of occurrence and had
52

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



witnessed the incidence of firing on Bablu Sonkar(deceased),
by the accused persons/appellants?
82. In this regard, this Court finds that as per the FIR Ext.-
2, incidence of firing on Bablu Sonkar(deceased), occurred
on 16.08.2013, after 17.10 hrs. when he proceeded from
hotel after eating food.
83. Informant Om Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh
Kumar (PW-2), are the body guards of the Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) and as per the prosecution case both the
body guards were along with the Bablu Sonkar(deceased) at
the alleged place at the time of occurrence, and had
witnessed the firing on the deceased by the accused
persons/appellants.
84. On going to the deposition of the Informant Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7), this Court finds that PW-7 had
stated in his evidence that in the leadership of Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) protest was being made against the
Electricity Department at Electricity Office, Subhash Chowk,
Ramgarh, and the protest came to an end at 04.00 PM on
16.08.2013. Thereafter, Bablu Sonkor(deceased) sat on a
motorcycle and the informant sat behind him and another
motorcycle was being driven by Subodh Singh, on which
police constable/bodyguard Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) sat and
they reached to Jaldhar Hotel situated at Bijhar, at 04:15
PM, where Shiv Kumar (PW-4) had arranged meat and rice.
53

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



After eating, they started to proceed at about 05:00 PM, then
Bablu Sonkar asked him (P.W.7) to drive the motorcycle and
Bablu Sonkar sat behind him on the motorcycle and Subodh
Singh who was driving another motorcycle, on which Rajesh
Kumar sat and they proceed from there. In the meantime, a
man who was acquainted with Bablu Sonkar came on Vagon
R at the hotel, then Bablu Sonkar started talking with him
and they were late by 5-10 minutes. Thereafter, they
proceeded 1 to 2 km towards Naisarai Mor and as soon as
they reached before 100 meters of S.D.O. residence, then he
saw three miscreants riding on two motorcycles each started
firing upon Bablu Sonkar(deceased) and fled away.
Informant also stated that in course of firing a woman (i.e.
P.W.5 Lalu @ Lalo Devi) had also sustained bullet injury.
Thereafter, he and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), stopped a car and
the injured Bablu Sonkar was taken to CCL Hospital,
Naisarai, with the help of people on a car.
85. Hence, in his testimony, informant PW-7 had stated
that on the day of occurrence on 16.08.2013 at 04:15 PM,
Bablu Sonkor (deceased) along with his two body guards Om
Prakash Kumar (informant PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2)
and one Subodh Singh, on two motorcycles, had reached at
Jaldhr Hotel situated Bijhar, were, Shiv Kumar (PW-4), had
arranged meat and rice and after taking food they proceeded
from the hotel and on the way indiscriminate firing was
54

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



made by the accused persons on Bablu Sonkor (deceased),
as a result he sustained bullet injury for which Bablu
Sonkor was taken to CCL Hospital, Naisarai.
86. Again, going to the testimony of the other body guard
Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) of Bablu Sonkar (deceased), this Court
finds that body guard Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) had stated in
his evidence that on the day of occurrence i.e. on
16.08.2013, Bablu Sonkar, after ending of the protest
against the Electricity Board, had gone to Jaldhar Hotel at

about 04:15 hrs, where arrangement of food was made and
thereafter, they came out from the hotel at 05:00 p.m. and
he sat on the motorcycle of Subodh Singh and Bablu Sonkar
sat on his motorcycle behind Om Prakash (informant PW-7)
and Om Prakash was riding it. When they were on the way
six miscreants on two motorcycles were also coming behind
them. As soon as motorcycle of Bablu Sonkar, reached near
Durga Mandap, indiscriminate firing was made upon Bablu
Sonkar. Bablu Sonkar sustained bullet injuries and fell
down from the motorcycle alongwith his bodyguard Om
Prakash Kumar. In the said firing one woman (P.W.5 Lalu @
Lalo Devi) had also sustained bullet injury on her leg.
87. In his cross-examination, body guard Rajesh Kumar
(PW-2), had stated that at the time of firing, he was standing
at the distance of 25 yard from the place of firing.
55

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




88. Further, on the day of occurrence, before the incidence
of indiscriminate firing on Bablu Sonkar(deceased), the
deceased had gone the Jaldhar Hotel situated at Bijhar
along with his two body guards and one Subodh and had
eaten food in the hotel, is also proved by the testimony of
Gautam Gope (P.W.-3), who is the owner of the hotel and
this fact has been dealt with while answering issue no.1.
89. Again, the fact that Bablu Sonkar(deceased), had come
to the Jaldhar Hotel situated at Bijhar along with his two
body guards and one Subodh, had eaten food, before leaving
the hotel is also corroborated by Shiv Kumar (PW-4),
who had deposed that he got food cooked at Jaldhar hotel on
the direction of Bablu Sonkar(deceased) and at 4 PM, in the
evening, four people came at Jaldhar hotel in two
motorcycles, out of which two were bodyguards, Bablu
Sonkar himself and Subodh Singh and after taking meal,
they left the said hotel at about 05:30 PM and then within
hour, rumour spread that Bablu Sonkar was shot by some
miscreants.
90. Further, ongoing to the evidence of PW-11 Dr. Ashok
Giri, this Court finds that PW-11 Dr. Ashok Giri, had firstly
treated Bablu Sonkar(deceased).
91. PW-11 Dr. Ashok Giri, had stated in his evidence that
on 16.08.2013, when he was posted as medical officer at
Naisarai Hospital, then, at about at 5:30 PM, Bablu Sonkar
56

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



was brought by local people and police personnel, before
him and he had treated the Bablu Sonkar. After initial
management patient was referred to higher center
considering critical condition of patient. During the
treatment, he had found following injuries on the person of
Bablu Sonkar: -
(a) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
posterior side of right shoulder
(b) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the right
side of upper abdomen
(c) Lacerated wound about 3 cm on the right side of lower
abdomen
(d) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
lateral side of right upper thigh
(e) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 3/3 cm on the
medial side of right upper thigh
92. Hence, from the testimony Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11), it is
proved that after sustaining bullet injury, Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) was treated by him at Naisarai Hospital, at
about at 5:30 PM on 16.08.2013 by him and he had found
four penetrated wounds on the person of Bablu
Sonkar(deceased).
93. Again, it has come in the evidence that on the date of
occurrence, in the evening, during indiscriminate firing on
Bablu Sonkar(deceased), one Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.5), had
also sustained injuries in bullet firing by the accused
persons and this fact has been proved while answering issue
No.(i), in the preceding paragraph.
57

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




94. Hence from the evidence of both the body guards of the
deceased Om Prakash Kumar (informant PW-7) and Rajesh
Kumar (PW-2), Gautam Gope (P.W.-3), Shiv Kumar (PW-4),
injured Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.5) and Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11),
who had firstly given the treatment to the Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), this Court comes to the conclusion that
on the day of occurrence on 16.08.2013, Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), along with his two bodyguards Om
Prakash Kumar (informant PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2)
and one Subodh Singh, had gone to the Hotel of Gautam
Gope (P.W.-3) and had eaten food in the hotel. Thereafter,
they proceeded from the hotel and on the way indiscriminate
bullet firing was made by the miscreants on Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), in which Bablu Sonkar(deceased), was
badly injured and one Lalu @ Lalo Devi (P.W.5), was also
injured in the firing, when she was going to her house after
supplying milk to the customers. The incidence of firing on
Bablu Sonkar(deceased), occurred in the evening of the day
of occurrence on 16.08.2013, which is corroborated from the
testimony of Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11), who had stated in his
evidence that Bablu Sonkar(deceased) was brought at the
hospital by local people and police personnel before him at
5:30 PM on 16.08.2013 and he started medical treatment as
instructed by his senior specialist Dr. Mithilesh Prasad and
58

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



after initial management patient was referred to higher
center considering critical condition of patient.
95. Hence, from the forgoing discussion, it is proved that
on the day of occurrence on 16.08.2013, the evening, both
the body guards of the deceased Om Prakash Kumar
(informant PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), were present at
the place and time of occurrence and had witnessed the
incidence of indiscriminate firing on Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), by the accused persons.
96.
Accordingly, issue No.(iii) has been answered.
Re: Issue No.(iv)
97. The fourth issue is whether Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) and
the informant Om Prakash Kumar (PW-7), who were the
body guard of the deceased, had identified the appellants
firing on the deceased at the place of occurrence?
98. Learned trial court had found that appellant Prem Ram
was driving the motorcycle of the miscreants from which
firing was made at the place of occurrence and at the time of
occurrence and he was identified by the informant Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) in the Test
Identification Parade.
99. Further, learned trial court had found that appellant
Arun Ram @ Teniya was firing from the motorcycle at the
time of occurrence and he was identified by the informant
59

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Om Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) in the
Test Identification Parade.
100. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein the judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court delineating on the issue of
identification parade. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 64 , had
pointed out the object, purpose and importance of test
identification parade. In this case Hon’ble Apex Court
pointed out that the holding of identification parades has
been in vogue since long in the past with a view to determine
whether an unknown person accused of an offence is really
the culprit or not, to be identified as such by those who
claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence so that
they would be able to identify the culprit if produced before
them by recalling the impressions of his features left on
their mind. Paragraph-14 of this judgment is quoted herein
below-
“14. Before dealing with the various contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellants as referred to
above, we shall first state the object, purpose and
importance of the test identification parade. It may be
pointed out that the holding of identification parades has
been in vogue since long in the past with a view to
determine whether an unknown person accused of an
offence is really the culprit or not, to be identified as such
by those who claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the
occurrence so that they would be able to identify the
culprit if produced before them by recalling the
impressions of his features left on their mind. That being
60

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



so, in the very nature of things, the identification parade
in such cases serves a dual purpose. It enables the
investigating agency to ascertain the correctness or
otherwise of the claim of those witnesses who claimed to
have seen the offender of the crime as well as their
capacity to identify him and on the other hand it saves the
suspect from the sudden risk of being identified in the
dock by such witnesses during the course of the trial. This
practice of test identification as a mode of identifying an
unknown person charged of an offence is an age-old
method and it has worked well for the past several
decades as a satisfactory mode and a well-founded
method of criminal jurisprudence. It may also be noted
that the substantive evidence of identifying witness is his
evidence made in the court but in cases where the
accused person is not known to the witnesses from before
who claimed to have seen the incident, in that event
identification of the accused at the earliest possible
opportunity after the occurrence by such witnesses is of
vital importance with a view to avoid the chance of his
memory fading away by the time he is examined in the
court after some lapse of time.”
(emphasis supplied)
101. Further, in the case of Dara Singh v. Republic of
India, (2011) 2 SCC 490, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid
down that in the absence of any independent corroboration
like TIP held by the Judicial Magistrate, the evidence of
eyewitnesses as to the identification of the appellant-
accused for the first time before the trial court generally
cannot be accepted. Paragraph-41 of this judgment id
quoted herein below-
“41. It is a well-settled principle that in the absence of
any independent corroboration like TIP held by the
Judicial Magistrate, the evidence of eyewitnesses as to
61

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



the identification of the appellant-accused for the first
time before the trial court generally cannot be accepted.
As explained in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , that if the
case is supported by other materials, identification of
the accused in the dock for the first time would be
permissible subject to confirmation by other
corroborative evidence, which are lacking in the case on
hand except for A-1 and A-3.”
(emphasis supplied)
102. In the present case, so far as participation of the
appellants in the offence and their identification is
concerned, this Court has gone to the evidence of both the
body guards of Bablu Sonkar(deceased) i.e. informant Om
Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), and both
PW-7 and PW-2 had stated in their evidence that in the TIP,
they had identified the accused persons namely Arun Ram @
Teniya and Prem Ram. Prem Ram has been identified as a
person who was driving motorcycle and Arun Ram @ Teniya
has been identified as a person who was firing upon the
deceased.
103. Body guard Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), in his testimony had
stated that he had identified the accused persons, who were
driving motorcycle at the time of firing and the accused who
had fired, is quoted as under-
“2 जो छह आिमी मोटरसाइक्षकल पर थे जो गोली चला रहे थे उन्हें मैं
भी िेखा था। घटना के कुछ क्षिन के बाि मुझे तथा ओम प्रकाश को
पुक्षलस पहचान के क्षलए हजारीबाग सेंटरल जेल ले गई थी। वहां पर जो
62

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



मोटरसाइक्षकत चला रहा था उसकी मैने पहचान क्षकया था और एक
गोली चलाने वाले का पहचान क्षकया था।“


104. Further, the testimony of the other body guard Prakash
Kumar (PW-7), is quoted as under-
“7. पुक्षलस को मैने बता क्षिया था क्षक जो लोग गोली चलाए थे उनको
िेखकर मैं पहचान सकता हूँ। डेढ़ महीना के अंिर पुक्षलस हजारीबाग
सेंटरल जेल टी . आई . पी . के क्षलए ले गई थी। वहां मैने जो मोटरसाइक्षकल
चला रहा था उसकी पहचान क्षकये थे और उसी मोटरसाइक्षकल पर जो
बीच में बैठकर गोली चला रहा था उसकी भी पहचान क्षकये थे।“
105. Further, this Court finds that there are two T.I.P. chart
on record which are dated 07.11.2013 and 20.09.2013,
marked as Ext.-14 and Ext.-15, respectively.

106. It is evident from record that P.W.13 Dharmendra
st
Kumar Singh, the Judicial Magistrate, 1 class, Hazaribag,
had conducted the T.I.P. of suspect Prem Ram. He had
deposed that in the T.I.P., witness constable 87 Om Prakash
(PW-7) and constable 362 Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), both had
identified the accused Prem Ram as a miscreant who was
driving the said motorcycle from which fires were being
made.
107. Further, P.W.-17 Sanjay Kumar Singh No.3, the
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Hazaribag, had conducted the
T.I.P., of the suspect Arun Ram @ Teniya. He had deposed
that in the T.I.P., Constable 87 Om Prakash (PW-7) and
constable 362 Rajesh Kumar (PW-2) had identified the
accused Arun Ram @ Teniya as a miscreant who was firing
from the motorcycle.
63

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




108. Hence, on the basis of the legal principles enunciated
by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred to and quoted
hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, this Court comes
to the considered conclusion that, in the present case,
informant Om Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar
(PW-2), who were the body guards of Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) and present at the place of occurrence,
had identified the appellant Prem Ram, as a miscreant who
was driving the motorcycle and appellant Arun Ram @
Teniya, as a miscreant who was firing from the said
motorcycle, which is supported by T.I.P. chart dated
07.11.2013 and 20.09.2013, marked as Ext.-14 and Ext.-
15, respectively.
109. Accordingly, issue No.(iv) has been answered.
Re: Issue no.(v)
110. Now, this Court is proceeding to examine whether the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants for the
offence under Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 25(1-B) a / 27(1) / 35 of the
Arms Act, beyond the reasonable doubt.
111. The appellants herein are inter alia convicted under
Section 302 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence, at this juncture, it needs to refer herein the judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court delineating the issue of criminal
conspiracy.
64

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




112. In case of Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State
of Maharashtra , AIR 1965 SC 682 , Hon’ble Apex Court
laid down that the offence of conspiracy can be established
either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and
this section will come to play only when the court is satisfied
that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired to commit an offence or an
actionable wrong. Paragraph-8 of this judgment is quoted
hereinbelow-
“8. Before dealing with the individual cases, as some
argument was made in regard to the nature of the
evidence that should be adduced to sustain the case of
conspiracy, it will be convenient to make at this stage
some observations thereon. Section 120-A of the Indian
Penal Code defines the offence of criminal conspiracy thus:
“When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to
be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by
illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy.”
The essence of conspiracy is, therefore, that there should
be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the
acts described in the section. The said agreement may be
proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and
conduct of the parties. There is no difference between the
mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any
other offence : it can be established by direct evidence or
by circumstantial evidence. But Section 10 of the Evidence
Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions
laid down therein are satisfied, the act done by one is
admissible against the co-conspirators. The said section
reads:
“Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two
or more persons have conspired together to commit an
65

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done
or written by any one of such persons in reference to
their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is
a relevant fact as against each of the persons
believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of
proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a party
to it.”
This section, as the opening words indicate, will come into
play only when the Court is satisfied that there is
reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons
have conspired together to commit an offence or an
actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be prima
facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy
before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators.
Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said,
done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to
the common intention, after the said intention was
entertained, is relevant against the others, not only for the
purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also
for proving that the other person was a party to it. The
evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two
circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference
to their common intention and in respect of a period after
such intention was entertained by any one of them. The
expression “in reference to their common intention” is very
comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly
used to give it a wider scope than the words “in
furtherance of” in the English law; with the result,
anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator, after
the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the
other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he
left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language
is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy.
Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only
“as against each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence
66

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any
such person was a party to it”. It can only be used for the
purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy or that
the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in
favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that
such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. In short,
the section can be analysed as follows : (1) There shall be
a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a
court to believe that two or more persons are members of a
conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything
said, done or written by any one of them in reference to
their common intention will be evidence against the other;
(3) anything said, done or written by him should have been
said, done or written by him after the intention was formed
by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the
said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy
whether it was said, done or written before he entered the
conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used
against a co-conspirator and not in his favour.
(emphasis supplied)
113. Further in case of Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain
Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra , (1981) 2 SCC 443,
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that for an offence under
Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove
that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be
done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by
necessary implication. Paragraph-30 of this judgment is
quoted herein below-
“30. It is true that there is no evidence of any express
agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be
done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B,
the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the
perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done
the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary
67

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were
possessing and selling explosive substances without a
valid licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference
that they agreed to do and/or caused to be done the said
illegal act, for, without such an agreement the act could not
have been done for such a long time.”
(emphasis supplied)

114. Again, in case of Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of
Delhi) , (2002) 5 SCC 234, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down
that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct
evidence and the circumstances proved during and after the
occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. Paragraph-41 of this judgment is
quoted herein below-
“41. No doubt, in the case of conspiracy there cannot be
any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that
there should be an agreement between persons who are
alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for
doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means, an act
which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of
criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act
and such an agreement can be proved either by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is
a matter of common experience that direct evidence to
prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the
circumstances proved before, during and after the
occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused.”

115. Again, in case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI ,
(2003) 5 SCC 257, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that it is
difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence.
Paragraph -32 of this judgment is quoted herein below-
68

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



“32. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the
ambit of Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, it is
necessary to establish that there was an agreement
between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult
to establish conspiracy by direct evidence.”
116. Hence, from the ratio of the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on the issue of criminal conspiracy, as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the legal position
can be succinctly summed up as follows:
i. The offence of conspiracy can be established
either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence.
ii. the prosecution need not necessarily prove that
the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause
to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be
proved by necessary implication.
iii. In case of conspiracy, an agreement between the
conspirators need not be directly proved but it
can also be inferred from the established facts in
the case.
iv. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct
evidence.
117. This Court in order to test the veracity whether the
appellants herein were involved in hatching conspiracy in
the murder of Bablu Sonkar(deceased), has perused the
fardbeyan and testimony of the informant Om Prakash
Kumar (PW-7).
69

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




118. From the fardbeyan and testimony of the Informant,
fact emerges that brother of Bablu Sonkar(deceased) namely
Shri Niwas alias Butul Patrakar, was murdered by a
gangster, by his shooter in the year 2012 and regarding this
case was running in Hazaribag Court, in which Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) was eye witness and for this Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) was being threatened by the miscreants.
Accused persons had sent one miscreant namely, Anand
Sahni at the house of Bablu Sonkar to kill him, but he was
apprehended and sent to jail. Thereafter, on the direction of
S.P., two bodyguards were deputed with Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) and on the day of occurrence also both the
body-guards constable no. 87 informant Om Prakash Kumar
(PW-7) and constable no. 362 Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), were
along with the deceased.
119. Hence, Bablu Sonkar(deceased) was under constant
pressure and threat of the accused persons, as he was an
eye witnesses to the murder of his brother.
120. From the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court finds that
the motive for the murder of Bablu Sonkar (deceased) stands
clearly established. The evidence on record, when read
conjointly, demonstrates that the accused was actuated by
animus and had sufficient reason to commit the offence,
thereby lending corroboration to the prosecution case on the
aspect of motive.
70

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




121. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
learned trial Court had not appreciated that on the basis of
confession of appellant Vijendra Ram, one pistol was
recovered from the house of Vijendra Ram, but there is no
evidence to connect the recovered pistol with the crime
weapon and none of the witnesses have identified the
appellants Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan @
Subhash Kr. Pashwan @ Subhash Paswan, to be perpetrator
of crime.
122.
Hence, this Court in order to ascertain the involvement
of both these appellants Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar
Paswan @ Subhash Kr. Pashwan @ Subhash Paswan, has
gone into the evidence of the investigating officer (PW-9) of
the case.
123. Investigating officer of the case Hari Prasad Sah(P.W.-
9) had sated in his evidence that on 26.08.2013, accused
persons Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram and Subhash Paswan
were arrested while they were planning to commit dacoity in
Ramgarh P.S Case No.235/2013 and in their confessional
statements Exts.-5,6 and 7, accused persons had disclosed
that the pistol by which Bablu Sonkar(deceased) was
killed, the said pistol can be recovered from the house of
accused Vijendra Ram (appellant herein) situated at Canton
Sweeper Colony.
71

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




124. Then, search of the house of the Vijendra Ram, was
made at 5.15 AM on 26.08.2013 and in the house of
Vijendra Ram, a country-made pistol of .315 bore was
recovered, which was marked as ‘D’. The seizure list of the
recovered pistol from the house of Vijendra Ram was marked
as Ext.-4.
125. On going through the seizure list Ext.-4 of the pistol
recovered from the house of the appellant Vijendra Ram, this
Court finds that in this seizure list recovery of .315 of one
country-made pistol of barrel length 12.4 cm and length of
pistol from barrel to butt is noted as 24 cm.
126. Further, the aforesaid pistol Ext.-4, seized from the
house of the appellant Vijendra Ram, was examined by P.W.-
12 Rajendra Singh, who is Sergeant Major.
127. P.W.-12 Rajendra Singh, Sergeant Major, on
examination of the seized pistol Ext.-4, in his arms and
ammunition report Ext.-9, had noted that pistol was of
length 30.9 cm.
128. Hence, there is contradiction in the length of pistol
Ext.-4, recovered from the house of appellant Vijendra Ram,
wherein the length of the pistol is shown as 24 cm whereas
in the arms and ammunition report Ext.-9, the length of
pistol was found 30.9 cm.
129. Now, question arises whether the contradiction in
length of the pistol used in the murder of the deceased is
72

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



fatal for the prosecution case and this contradiction can be
accepted as valid defense for the appellants.
130. In this regard, this court has gone to the medical
evidence pertaining to Bablu Sonkar(deceased), which has
been exhibited by the prosecution.
131. On going to the evidences and records, this court finds
that three sets of medical evidence, pertaining to Bablu
Sonkar(deceased), have been led by the prosecution -
i. Ext.-12, which is the injury report, issued by the
Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11).
ii. Ext.-18, which is the Death-cum-injury report,
and
iii. Ext.-11 Post mortem report of Bablu
Sonkar(deceased).
132. In the evening of the day of occurrence on 16.08.2013,
when Bablu Sonkar (deceased), was injured by bullet, in the
indiscriminate firing by the accused persons, firstly he was
taken to Naisarai Hospital, where Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11),
had firstly treated Bablu Sonkar. At the cost of repetition,
details of wounds, as noted in injury report Ext.-12, found
by Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11), are as under-
( a) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
posterior side of right shoulder
(b) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
right side of upper abdomen
73

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



(c) Lacerated wound about 3 cm on the right side of lower
abdomen
(d) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 2/2 cm on the
lateral side of right upper thigh
(e) Penetrating lacerated wound of about 3/3 cm on the
medial side of right upper thigh
133. Thereafter, considering critical condition of Bablu
Sonkar, he was taken to Apollo Hospital, Ranchi, where
Bablu Sonkar was treated. Ext.-18, is the Death-cum-injury
report of Bablu Sonkar (deceased), dated 28.09.2013, issued
by Apollo Hospital, Ranchi, wherein it is noted that Bablu
Sonkar was examined in Apollo Hospital Ranchi, on
16.08.2013 at 18.35 hrs and he had sustained multiple
bullet injuries. The details of injuries, caused to Bablu
Sonkar, as noted in the Death-cum-injury report Ext.-18,
are as follows-
Sl.No
Description of
Dimension
Causative
Age of
Simple/Griev
1
wound
3
weapon
wound
ous

2
4
5
6
1. Bullet injury
1.5cmx1.5
bullet Fresh Grievous
rt. Shoulder
cm
2. Bullet injury
1cmx1cm bullet Fresh Grievous
cervical region
front
3. Bullet injury
1cmx1cm bullet Fresh Grievous
left rt. Flank
abdomen entry
and exit
4. Bullet injury 1cmx1cm bullet Fresh Grievous
74

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



rt. lumber
region back
5. Bullet injury
1.5cmx1.5
bullet Fresh Grievous
rt. thigh
cm
6. Bullet injury
1cmx1cm bullet Fresh Grievous
rt. lower chest


134. Further, in the Death-cum-injury report Ext.-18,
issued by Apollo Hospital, Ranchi, it is noted that Bablu
Sonkar expired on 28.09.2013.
135. Thereafter, postmortem examination of Bablu Sonkar
was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ajit Kumar
Choudhary (PW-10). Doctor had found recently healed scar
on the body of the deceased, which were noted in the
postmortem report Ext.-11, as follows-
Recently healed scar-
(1) 1 & 1/2 X 1 cm on back of right arm upper part
situated 12 cm below top of right shoulder underneath
there was fracture of right clavicle in which the healing
process was in progress and there was presence of pus in
right chest cavity.
(2) 1 X 1/2 cm on lateral side of right chest lower part
situated 18 cm on right to midline and 10 cm above the
umbilicus underline soft tissue are healed
(3) 1cm X 1cm on lateral side of right abdomen lower part
situated 3 cm above the right iliac crest the underline
soft tissue were healed
(4) 1 X 1cm on left abdomen front and lower part situated
7 cm left to midline and 5 cm below the level of
umbilicus. The underline tissue were healed
(5) Stitched wound 1 X 1/2cm which two stitches on left
chest lateral side middle part situated 15 cm below left
75

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



axilla and 19 cm left midline underneath there was
fracture of 6th rib and hence were in healing process
(6) 2 X 1&1/2cm on anterior side of upper part of right
thigh situated 8 cm below anterior superior iliac spine.
The underline soft tissue were healed. There was another
recently healed scarf 1 X 1/2 cm on anteromedial side of
right thigh of middle part. Surgical stitched wound. 29
cm long which 28 stitched mark (stitched were removed
and wound was healed) on right posterolateral side of
chest situated 10 cm below the right axilla and extending
from anterior part of right chest. There was sloughing
wound 2 X 2 cm on right chest lateral side 10 cm below
the right nipple and 17 cm from midline. The underline
track was upto chest cavity with presence of pus in right
chest cavity and right lung is adherent to right chest wall
136. Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (PW-10), had opined that
Death was due to septicemia as a result of above noted
injuries.
137. Hence, from Ext.-12, which is the initial injury report,
issued by the Dr. Ashok Giri (PW-11) and Ext.-18, which is
the Death-cum-injury report of Bablu Sonkar(deceased),
issued by Apollo Hospital, Ranchi and postmortem report
Ext.-11, this Court comes to the conclusion that Bablu
Sonkar(deceased) had succumbed to injuries due to multiple
bullet injuries, fired from a pistol.
138. Further from testimony of P.W.1 it is evident that
accused/ appellant Vijendra Ram, Subhash Paswan and
Arun Ram have confessed that the pistol which was
recovered from the house of Vijendra Ram was used at the
time of firing upon deceased Bablu Sonkar. The aforesaid
76

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



fact has been substantiated by the testimony of P.W.9 (I.O)
who has testified that accused (appellants herein) Arun
Ram, Vijendra Ram and Subhash Paswan were arrested on
26.08.2013 at the time of making a plan for committing
dacoity in Ramgarh P.S. Case no.235/13, in which they
have confessed their involvement in the commission of
offence of firing on Bablu Sonkar. He has further stated that
they also disclosed that the pistol which was used by
accused Arun Ram in the commission of murder of Bablu
Sonkar has been kept in the house Vijendra Ram situated at
Canton Sweeper Colony, which may be recovered from there,
thereafter, he proceeded to the house of Vijendra Ram on
26.08.2013 along-with accused Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram
and Subhash Paswan and reached at about 05:15 a.m. and
the house of the Vijendra Ram was searched and in the said
search, a blue colour pithu bag hanging in the corner of the
wall of the house was recovered, from which a country-made
pistol of .315 bore, along with other articles were recovered
which was seized by making a seizure list in the presence of
said three accused persons namely Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram
and Subhash Paswan. He has categorically testified that
accused also put their respective signatures on it and one
copy of the said seizure list was given to each of the accused
persons who put their respective signatures on it in token of
acknowledgement thereof. The aforesaid testimony of P.W.9
77

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



has fully been substantiated by testimony of P.W.8 and
corroborated the factum of seizure of pistol in house of
Vijendra Ram.
139. Further P.W.12 namely, Rajendra Singh who is
Sergeant Major, has deposed in his examination-in-chief
that the seized materials of Ramgrh P.S. Case no.225/13
dated 16.08.2013 was produced before him in a sealed form
in white colour markin cloth by the I.O. namely Hari Prasad
Sah in compliance of order of the then S.D.J.M., Hazaribag.
After unsealing the said sealed materials, one country-made
pistol having length 30.09 cm bearing P.S. Case number and
marked 'D" was found. He has further testified that at the
time of testing it was found that .315 bore cartridges may be
easily inserted on it. Further it was found that fire may be
made from it. This witness has also proved his examination
report, which has been marked as Ext.9 in this case. This
witness has denied the suggestion put to him on behalf of
defence to the effect that his examination report is
erroneous. Thus, from testimony of this witness, it is evident
that the seized pistol was in working condition and it was
compatible to use for .315 bore cartridges.
140. The aforesaid pistol seized vide Ext.-4, recovered from
the house of Vijendra Ram (appellant herein), was alleged to
be used in murder of Bablu Sonkar and the fact that pistol
has been used in the alleged incident has been
78

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



substantiated from the testimony of P.W.8 and P.W.9.
Further both the eye witnesses Om Prakash Kumar
(informant PW-7) and constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), who
had identified the appellant Prem Ram, as a miscreant who
was driving the motorcycle and appellant Arun Ram @
Teniya, as a miscreant who was firing from the said
motorcycle, in the Test identification parade and the said
issue has already been dealt as issue no.(iv).
141. The conspiracy orchestrated by the appellants, proved
with the arrest of Arun Ram @ Teniya, Vijendra Ram, and
Subhash Kumar Paswan in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 235/13,
and culminating in the recovery of the pistol under Ext.-4,
alleged to have been employed in the murder of Bablu
Sonkar, stands fortified by medical evidence as the injury
report explicitly records firearm-related injuries, thereby
lending corroboration to the prosecution’s case that the
pistol was used in the commission of the offence.
142. From the testimony of PW-9, Hari Prasad Sah, who was
part investigating officer of the instant case, it emerges that
on 26-08-2013 the accused Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram, and
Subhash Paswan were apprehended while conspiring to
commit dacoity in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 235/13. In their
respective confessional statements (Exts. -5, 6, and 7), they
admitted their involvement in the offence of firing upon
Bablu Sonkar. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, the
79

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



pistol (Material Ext.-1), alleged to have been used by
accused Arun Ram in the murder of Bablu Sonkar, was
recovered from the residence of Vijendra Ram along with
other incriminating materials. The said seizure list was
prepared in the presence of the three accused/appellants
namely Arun Ram, Vijendra Ram, and Subhash Paswan
each of whom was furnished with a copy and acknowledged
the same by affixing his signature. Further, PW-12 Sergeant
Major Rajendra Singh, in his examination report (Ext.-9),
confirmed that the country-made pistol was in working order
and capable of firing .315 bore cartridges. The recovery of
the said pistol from the house of Vijendra Ram, based on the
confessional statements, stands corroborated by PW-1 Kadir
Ansari and PW-8 Taraknath Singh.
143. The evidence of PW-9, Hari Prasad Sah, together with
Ext.-3 (production-cum-seizure list dated 17-08-2013,
prepared at 6:45 hrs.), further establishes that from the
place of occurrence one empty cartridge of .315 bore, one
empty cartridge of 9 mm, and one empty cartridge of 7.62
mm were recovered, each bearing firing marks at the base.
These were seized and duly marked as A (.315 bore), B (9
mm), and C (7.62 mm), and sealed and the said .315 bore
empty cartridges has been fired from the country-made
pistol which has been recovered from the house of the
Vijendra Ram as it appears from the FSL report Jharkhand,
80

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



Ranchi dated 09-09-2016 (Ext.-17) in which it has clearly
been stated that "the fired cell mark A noted in item 1 has
been fired from the country-made pistol mark D noted in
item 2” which have been produced before the court by PW-
14 Rajesh Kumar Roy for perusal of the court along-with
other material exhibits as it appears from Material Ext.-I & II
respectively.
144. Thus, in the present case, there exists sterling ocular
testimony in the form of PW-2 and PW-7, who have
categorically deposed that appellant Prem Ram was the
miscreant driving the motorcycle, while appellant Arun Ram
@ Teniya was the miscreant firing from the said motorcycle.
Further, the conspiracy orchestrated by the appellants,
evidenced through the arrest of Arun Ram @ Teniya,
Vijendra Ram, and Subhash Kumar Paswan in Ramgarh
P.S. Case No. 235/13, and culminating in the recovery of the
pistol (Ext.-4) alleged to have been employed in the murder
of Bablu Sonkar, stands further corroborated by medical
evidence, the injury report explicitly recording
firearm-related injuries. In view of such unimpeachable
ocular and medical corroboration, the alleged contradiction
regarding the precise length of the pistol used in the murder
of the deceased cannot be regarded as fatal to the
prosecution case.
81

2026:JHHC:26608-DB




145. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove this
Court is of the view that, prosecution has proved the charges
against the appellants Prem Ram, Arun Ram @ Teniya,
Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan @ Subhash Kr.
Pashwan @ Subhash Paswan, under section 302 r/w
Section 120B of the I.P.C and under Sections 25(1-B) a/35
and 27(1) of the Arms Act, beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt and hence, requires no interference by the Court.
146. Accordingly, issue no.(v), has been answered.
Conclusion:
147. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction dated
28.09.2018 and Order of sentence dated 05.10.2018, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Fast Track
Court, Ramgarh, in Sessions Trial Case No.635 of 2013,
passed against the appellants Prem Ram, Arun Ram @
Teniya, Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan @
Subhash Kr. Pashwan @ Subhash Paswan, are hereby
sustained and upheld.
148. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1356 of 2018,
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1357 of 2018 and Criminal
Appeal (D.B.) No. 1187 of 2018 are hereby dismissed.
149. Consequent, upon dismissal of the appeal, appellants
Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan @ Subhash Kr.
Pashwan @ Subhash Paswan, since are enjoying the
suspension of sentence after order passed by this Court
82

2026:JHHC:26608-DB



directing to release him during pendency of the appeal, the
bail bond of both the appellants are hereby cancelled and
appellants are directed to surrender before the learned trial
court for serving out the sentence passed against them.
150. Needless to say, that if the appellants will not
surrender, the trial Court will take endeavors for securing
custody of the appellants to serve out the sentence as
inflicted by the learned trial court.
151. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
152. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.


(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
st
Dated, the 1 September, 2026.
Birendra / A.F.R.


Uploaded on 03/09/2026


83