(2025:JHHC:15800) Acq. App. No.22 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. App. No.22 of 2006 (Against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra in S.T. No. 174 of 2002) The State of Jharkhand ..... Appellant Versus 1. Baleshwar Paswan, son of Manki Paswan, resident of Village-Lakhe, P.S.- Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh 2. Balendra Kumar, son of Kishori Sao, resident of Village-Lion Mohalla, Chatra, P.S.-Chatra, Dist.-Chatra. At present Batam Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, Dist.-Hazaribagh 3. Dinesh Paswan, son of Anandi Paswan, resident of Village-Amritnagar, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh ….. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Appellant : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Advocate . For the Respondents : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This acquittal appeal has been filed under Section 378 (1) (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra in S.T. No. 174 of 2002 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra has acquitted the accused persons of the case by giving them the benefit of doubt and discharged them from the liability of their bail bond; after in the impugned judgement only recording the gist of the deposition of all the five prosecution witnesses in paragraph nos. 3 to 7 by dedicating of the paragraph from 3 to 7 to the deposition of one the prosecution witness each and in paragraph nos. 8 and 9, the learned Additional Sessions (2025:JHHC:15800) Acq. App. No.22 of 2006 2 Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra has recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and in paragraph no.10 of the judgment has opined as follows:- “In that view of the matter all the accused persons, namely Baleshwar Paswan, Balendra Kumar and Dinesh Paswan are hereby acquitted to give them benefit of doubt and also discharged from the liability of their bail bond.” 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents were facing the trial for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and under Sections 379, 413, 414, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code in respect of committing theft of 432 kilogram of katha from the protected forest. 4. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- III, Chatra in a cryptic manner without giving his any finding as to whether in fact each of the offences for which the respondents were facing the charge in the trial is made out or not has acquitted them. 5. It is a settled principle of law that the judgement passed in a Sessions trial is the expression of the opinion of the trial judge, often due consideration of the facts which deserve to be determined. Sessions Court is required to weigh evidence available in the record and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the evidence available in the record is sufficient to establish each of the charge faced by the accused persons in the trial has been be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if any charge have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then to hold the accused persons facing the trial, guilty of such offence. On the other hand, if upon weighing of the evidence in (2025:JHHC:15800) Acq. App. No.22 of 2006 3 the record comes to the conclusion that, charge concerned is not proved beyond reasonable doubt then to acquit the accused of such charge. The Sessions Court also required to record its finding in respect of each of the charges faced by the accused person in the trial. 6. This Court after perusal of the impugned judgment is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra has failed to discharge his duty cast upon him as the session court to give the findings with reasoning as to whether prosecution has failed to establish each of the charge for which the respondents faced trial. Hence, the said impugned judgment dated 13.12.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2002 is not sustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2005 in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra is quashed and set aside. 8. The case is remanded to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra to pass a fresh judgment after giving opportunity of being heard to both the State as well as the respondents. 9. The respondents are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra on 03.07.2025 to take further instruction in this case. 10. Registry is directed to transmit the trial record after retaining the photocopy of the same, to the Sessions Judge, Chatra. 11. This acquittal appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th June, 2025 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-