1 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:20870-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 Indrasan Singh, son of Late Sukhdeo Singh, permanent resident of Magardah, PO & PS: Nagar Untari, District: Garhwa, at present residing at 17/10, Clide Road, Officers Hydel Colony, Near Times of India, Lucknow, PO: GPO, PS: Hazratganj, District: Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh). ... Appellant -Versus- 1. Sunita Singh, daughter of Late Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of Magarda, PS: Nagar Untari, District: Garhwa, at present residing at Pina Road, Anpara More, PO & PS: Anpara, District: Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh); 2. Fulamati Devi, wife of Late Sidheshwar Prasad, resident of Pina Road, Anpara More, PO & PS: Anpara, District: Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh); … Respondents 3. State of Jharkhand ... Proforma Respondent CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 : None … 12/ 14.07.2026 Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. None appears on behalf of O.P. Nos.1 & 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2018, passed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 54/2011, whereby and whereunder, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under sections 302/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Indrasan Singh (appellant herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the son of the informant namely Rakesh Kumar Singh was solemnized on 07.03.2002 with Sunita. After the marriage the daughter-in-law of the informant started spending time at her parental house. It has been alleged that the daughter-in- 2 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 law of the informant used to misbehave with the informant and his wife and the brother of his daughter-in-law used to give threat to file false cases related to demand of dowry. The son of the informant took a transfer to Lucknow on the hope that being at a distant place from his in-laws’ house may instill good sense in the mind of the daughter-in-law of the informant. Despite efforts made by the son of the informant, his daughter-in-law refused to reside with him. It has been alleged that on 16.11.2008 some persons had come to the house of the informant and as soon as the wife of the informant came in the courtyard one Pradeep Kumar had shot at her and thereafter, he had fled away on a bike. The police had come on information to the house of the informant and admitted the wife of the informant in the hospital where she died. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Nagar Untari PS Case No. 260/ 2008 was instituted under sections 302/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 54/2011. Charge was framed against the accused under sections 302/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. 5. PW-1 Indrasan Singh is the informant who has stated that on 16.11.2010 his wife Mala Devi was shot at by Pradeep Singh, the brother-in- law of his son Rakesh. There was another person with Pradeep Singh who was waiting outside on a motorcycle. He has stated that Pradeep Singh had come to his house at 7:00 p.m. and asked him to call Mala Devi and when she came out she was shot at the chest by Pradeep Singh at which he raised an alarm and ran outside. Due to the firearm injury his wife died. His father Sukhdeo Singh had also seen the incident. The police were informed and they had taken his wife to a government hospital. At the time of the incident his two daughters and daughter-in-law Sunita were inside the house preparing food. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Ext.1. He has proved the signature of Santosh Kumar Singh in the written report which has been marked as Ext.1/1. The cause of the incident was the dispute between his son Rakesh and daughter-in-law Sunita. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has failing eyesight. He sometimes visits his village though he does not have any concern with 3 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 farming. There was a dispute between his father and the land holders. It is not true that the land holders had threatened his father of ruining his family. He has deposed that both his daughters-in-law are named Sunita. 6. PW-2 Santosh Kumar Singh has stated that he had come to know that Mala Devi has been murdered by Pradeep Singh, the brother-in-law of the son of the deceased. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had come to know about the occurrence on account of an alarm raised. The police had not recorded his statement. 7. PW-3 Parmeshwar Singh has stated that he had come to know that the wife of Indrasan Singh had been murdered by two persons. He does not know the accused. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police. The police had already taken away the dead body before he had reached the place of occurrence. 8. PW-4 Santosh Pandey has stated that on 16.11.2008 at 07:00 p.m. he was at Nagar Untari Market and when he returned back to his village at 7:30 p.m. he came to know that two persons had come on a bike and had shot dead the wife of Indrasan. He had seen the dead body. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the accused. The police had not recorded his statement. 9. PW-5 Shyama Nand Pandey has stated that on the next day of the incident he had come to know about the murder of Mala Devi. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police. He does not know the name of the accused. 10. PW-6 Arbind Kumar Singh is the brother of the deceased who has stated that he was returning from the house of his sister when his brother Shivnath informed him that his sister has been murdered by the accused persons by hatching a conspiracy since his sister did not want her daughter- in-law to keep any association with her parents’ side. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the accused Sunita used to stay separate from her parents-in-law. Everyday Sunita used to go to her parents’ place. 11. PW-7 Prakash Kumar Singh is the son of the informant and the deceased, who has stated that he was returning to Varanasi from his house when he came to know from his brother-in-law Manoj over phone that the accused persons have committed the murder of his mother. The reason for the 4 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 occurrence was the frequent quarrel between his mother and the accused persons. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had stated before the police about the threats given by the accused persons. 12. PW-8 Hemlata Singh is the daughter of the deceased and informant who has stated that on 16.11.2008 at 7:00 p.m. her father had stated that the accused persons under a conspiracy used to commit torture upon her mother. Her sister-in-law Sunita Devi did not want her brother to keep any relation with his parents and instead wanted that the son of the deceased keeps a relationship with his in-laws which was the reason for the occurrence. In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had heard the sound of firing and had not seen the accused persons who had already fled away by then. She had not stated before the police about the involvement of Sunita in the incident of murder. 13. PW-9 Prem Lata Singh is another daughter of the deceased and the informant who has stated that she had come to her parent’s place to attend the last rituals of her grandmother, when on 16.11.2008 in the evening her father came and disclosed that her mother has been shot dead by Pradeep Singh. She has cast aspersions upon the other accused persons as well since her sister-in- law Sunita did not want to stay at her matrimonial house and always used to torture her mother and this was the reason for the murder. In cross examination, she has deposed that she had not witnessed the incident. She had only heard the sound of firearm. The accused persons had fled away. She had not seen the accused at the place of occurrence. 14. PW-10 Dr. Mohan Prasad was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa and on 17.11.2008 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mala Devi and had found the following: “(I) gun shot injuries: (a) entry wound present over right side of chest over breast ½” diameter circular inverted edge tatoo & ringing mark around entry wound with blackening of edge of wound (II) exit wound present over a left infra scapular area 1” diameter circular everted edge (III) internally right homothecies, hemoperitenial lacerated right lung, liver, spleen, and left kidney was present.” The cause of death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage on account of gunshot injury on chest and abdomen caused by firearm. The post- mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.1. 15. PW-11 Hari Prasad Shah was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Nagar Untari PS and on 16.11.2008 he had taken over the investigation of Nagar 5 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 Untari PS Case No. 260/ 2008. He has proved the endorsement in the written report of Indrasan Singh which has been marked as Ext.2. The formal FIR, seizure list and inquest report have been proved and marked as Ext.3, 4 and 5 respectively. On 16.11.2008 at 7:05 p.m. he had come to know that a person has been shot at village Mangardah at which he had made a Station Diary Entry and had thereafter left for the place of occurrence. On reaching village Mangardah he came to know that the wife of Indrasan Singh has been shot at by miscreants. At the place of occurrence, he had seen a crowd having assembled and the wife of Indrasan was wriggling in the varandah. The injured was brought to Nagar Untari Sub Divisional Hospital where after sometime the Doctor declared her dead. The written report of Indrasan was given in the hospital itself. On his direction, the Sub Inspector Sameer Kumar Choudhary had prepared the inquest report. He had recorded the re-statement of the informant as well as the statements of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is the house of the informant situated at village Mangardah. He had seized an empty cartridge and pellet from the place of occurrence. On account of his transfer the charge of investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector Sameer Kumar Choudhary. In cross-examination, he has deposed that except Indrasan Singh there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. None of the witnesses had seen any of the conspirators at the place of occurrence. 16. PW-12 Rakesh Kumar Singh has stated that on 16.11.2008 at 7:00 p.m. he was going outside when he had received a telephonic call that his mother has been murdered. When he returned home, he found the dead body of his mother at Referral Hospital, Nagar Untari. He had come to know from his father that his brother-in-law Pradeep Kumar had committed the murder. He has stated that his marriage was solemnized on 07.03.2002 at village Anpara. The behavior of his wife was not good and she used to spend most of the time at her parental house. His in-laws used to regularly interfere in their family matters as a result of which the relationship between both the families was not good and being frustrated, he had sought a transfer to Lucknow. He had come to attend the last rituals of his grandmother and while going back to his work place, he had come to know about the incident. He has stated that after marriage his wife used to mostly reside at her parent’s house and was reluctant in doing domestic chores. His children were also not properly looked after by his wife. When his parents tried to reason with his wife her family members used abusive language and threatened to commit the murder of his parents. 6 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 He has proved the signatures of his father and Santosh Kumar Singh in the written report which has been marked as Ext. 2/1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. He does not have any dispute with his wife for the present. 17. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they have denied their complicity in the occurrence. 18. It has been submitted by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the appellant that there are strong circumstantial evidence that it was the accused persons who had conspired with each other and Pradeep Singh in eliminating the wife of the appellant/ informant. Mr. Rai has copiously referred to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12 which according to him establishes the angle of conspiracy. There was admittedly a strained relationship between the informant family and the family of the in-laws of PW-12 and threatenings were given earlier and since the main assailant Pradeep Singh appears to be the brother of Sunita Singh the allegation further gets substantiated. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the trial Court records. 20. As per the informant, his wife was shot at by Pradeep Singh which resulted in her death. The implication of the accused/ respondents stems from the fact that Pradeep Singh, the main assailant is the brother and son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively and they had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the wife of the informant which was ultimately executed by Pradeep Singh. Conspiracy is a meeting of minds with a devious intent hatched in the dungeons of secrecy. There cannot be any direct evidence against the conspirators and circumstantial evidence would be the core to prove the conspiracy depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. It is to be discerned from the scenario projected by the prosecution as to whether the accused-respondents have colluded and conspired which ultimately led to the murder of the wife of the informant. The only evidence of substance appears to be PW-1 and PW-12. PW-1 is the informant and the only eye-witness to the occurrence. He has categorically stated that it was Pradeep Singh who had shot at his wife. Pradeep Singh, as we have noted above, is incidentally the brother of the accused/ respondent no.1 and son of accused/ respondent no.2. The prosecution has sought to establish a 7 Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2019 connection between the murder and the strained relationship, the accused/respondent no.1 was having with her husband. Admittedly, the presence of either of the accused/ respondents had not been noted by any of the prosecution witnesses. PW-12 is the son of the informant and the deceased and husband of the accused/ respondent no.1 and he has deposed about the bad blood existing between both the families on account of too much of interference in the family matters of the informant by the in-laws of PW-12 and a threat was also meted out to eliminate the informant and his wife. Simply on account of a strained relationship existing between both the sides would not catapult the status of the respondents to accused until and unless there are cogent materials strengthening the angle of conspiracy. There is not even a fraction of evidence adduced by the prosecution from which it can be gathered that the accused/ respondents had worked in tandem to lay the ground work for executing their treacherous plan of eliminating the wife of the informant. 22. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the fact that there is a total dearth of evidence to establish the charges against the accused/ respondents and had consequently acquitted them. We in view of the discussions made hereinabove do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and resultantly we dismiss this appeal. 23. Pending IA, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 14.07.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 20.07.2026