2026:JHHC:14764 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017 -------- Panchdev Singh, S/o. Late Agnideo Singh, R/o. Sijua 10 No., P.O.- Sijua, P.S.- Jogta, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh, S/o. Late Tej Narayan Singh, R/o. Saharpura, Sindri, P.O. & P.S.- Sindri, Dist.- Dhanbad. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Shwetang Kr. Tewari, Advocate : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate JUDGMENT C.A.V. On: 07/04/2026 Pronounced On: 14/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of Opposite Party No. 2 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1340/2002 dated 17.01.2015 and acquitted the Opposite Party No. 2 from the charges under Sections 323, 452 & 380 of the I.P.C. 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant Panchdev Singh has filed a complaint case being C.P. Case No. 1340/2002 against the opposite party no. 2 Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh stating inter alia that on 11.10.2002 at about 10:00 P.M., complainant was at his home, in the meantime, Officer-in-charge, Jogta police station namely Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh came to his house by a Maruti van and told him to accompany him to police station saying that the Deputy S.P. Saheb (Dy. S.P.) desires to meet you, the complainant went to police station. It is alleged that when the complainant did not return till night, his son made a telephonic call on mobile of Officer-in-charge, (Jogta) police station asking him as to why his father has not returned till now. Upon this, it was replied on mobile phone itself to bring Rs. 10,000/- within half an hour at the police station, if he desires to see his father well. It is further alleged that Officer-in-charge, Rabindra Singh locked the complainant in the Hajat of the police station and putting pressure upon him to demand Rs. 10,000/- from his home, otherwise, he will be tortured at the police station. It is further alleged that till 1:00 A.M., the said demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not fulfilled then Officer-in-charge in a drunken state forcefully tied up complainant's hand towards his back with the help of two constables and started beating up him with bamboo stick with intention to kill him. It is further alleged that after getting 3-4 blows of bamboo stick, informant fell down then Rabindra Singh sat on the chest of the 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) complainant and started assaulting him, upon his nose by his feet due to which complainant sustained severe injuries on his nose and became unconscious. It is further alleged that informant's son also approached at 3:00 A.M. to the police station at that time complainant has regained consciousness and complainant's son requested to Officer-in-charge to release his father saying that at present he has no money, but they were driven away by the officer-in-charge. It is further alleged that above torturous acts of Officer-in-charge was reported to Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad through telephonic message on 12.10.2002 at about 6:00 A.M. Thereafter, the said Officer-in-charge released and left the complainant at his door by his Maruti van and also threatened to fulfill the demand of Rs. 10,000/-, otherwise, he will be implicated in another case. Thereafter, complainant alongwith his son went to the Office of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 12.10.2002 at about 9:00 A.M. and narrated about the above occurrence. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad assured him for action in the matter. On 14.10.2002 at about 9:00 P.M., the Officer-in-charge of the police station again came to the house of the complainant alongwith five constables, entered into his home and took away Rs. 5,000/- cash, a mobile phone of Siemen company worth Rs. 8,000/- from his Almira opening the same and upon protest, threatened the entire family members of dire consequences and false implication in several cases. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate after conducting inquiry into the complaint petition, found prima facie case for the offences under 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) Sections 323, 324, 380 & 452 of the I.P.C. and summoned the accused. 5. The accused (Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh) appeared on summons but did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 06 witnesses were examined by the complainant. I. C.W.-1 Rajendra Singh II. C.W.-2 Satyendra Singh III. C.W.-3 Ganesh Turi IV. C.W.-4 Raju Singh @ Raju Thakkar V. C.W.-5 Panchdev Singh (Complainant) VI. C.W.-6 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh On the other hand, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant. 7. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence, plea of innocence and false implication and the defence has also examined altogether 05 witnesses. I. D.W.-1 Kameshwar Prasad Choudhary II. D.W.-2 Dhru Nath Singh III. D.W.-3 Gorak Nath Singh IV. D.W.-4 Morisetty Bhaskar Rao V. D.W.-5 Koilia Devi 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of respective parties, held the accused Officer-in-charge (Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh) guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) 452 & 380 of the I.P.C. and passed sentence of imprisonment. The accused was acquitted from the charge of Section 324 of the I.P.C. 9. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 11/2015 was preferred by the convict / opposite party no. 2 Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Prasad Singh and the same was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused / opposite party no. 2 has been reversed and set aside and he was acquitted from the charges, which has been assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitiioner:- 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Appellate Court without recording any valid reasons for differing from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court acted in illegal and perverse manner. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider the admitted facts even by the accused showing his presence and involvement in the alleged occurrence. The learned Appellate Court has also failed to consider that mere criminal antecedents of complainant and his son may not warrant an illegal action at the hands of police. It is further submitted that it is evident from the evidence of DW-1, who has proved Exhibit-A as station diary entry no. 196 dated 12.10.2002 that the Officer-in-charge alongwith raiding party had proceeded for arrest of Satyendra Singh and Saroj Singh on 11.10.2002 at about 4:30 A.M. Therefore, there was no occasion for the arrest of the complainant/petitioner. The learned Appellate Court has also relied upon inquiry conducted by Dy. 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) S.P. upon complaint of the petitioner in order to save the erring officials proved as exhibit- X & X/1 by the defence. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has laid much emphasis upon defence evidence and ignored the material evidence of the complainant proving the guilt of the accused, which also finds corroboration from other witnesses examined by the complainant. The un-rebutted and un-impeachable testimony of complainant has been withheld by the learned Appellate Court on mere conjecture and surmises. Therefore, impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is fit to be restored and maintained. Submission on behalf of the Opposite Party:- 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court had passed its judgment on irrelevant materials and without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the defence evidence in order to test the veracity of complainant's case. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has considered all the materials in threadbare manner and after scrutinizing oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, dis-believed the complainant's case as depicted in the complaint petition and the learned Appellate Court has recorded the findings pointing out various material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of complainant's witness to disbelieve their testimony. The learned Appellate Court has taken different view from the learned Trial Court on the basis of sound 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) reasons. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has power to re-write the judgment appreciating the overall evidence adduced in the case during trial and in appropriate cases may reverse the findings of the learned Trial Court. In the instant case, the learned Appellate Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and scrutinized the evidence of both the parties and rightly set aside the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. It is also settled law that in a case where two views are possible, one in favour of accused must be accepted. In the instant case, the conviction by the learned Trial Court and acquittal by learned Appellate Court on merits clearly indicates two views possible in this case, one in favour of prosecution and another in favour of accused. The Revisional Court has a limited power to exercise in order to check the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment / order and no such glaring irregularity or error of law in the judgment of learned Appellate Court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for any interference in this revision. Therefore, this revision has got no merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 12. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. It appears that the learned Trial Court has convicted the opposite party no. 2 for the incidence of 14.10.2002 at about 9:00 P.M., wherein it has been alleged that the Officer-in-charge, Jogta Police Station, opposite party no. 2 alongwith other police personnel arrived and entered into the house of the 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) complainant and also committed theft of Rs. 5,000/- cash and one mobile phone. No charge for demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- was framed. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has acted upon the testimony of witnesses examined by the complainant only on the basis of their examination-in-chief. The learned Appellate Court has noted down that PW-1 Rajendra Singh was deposing during trial mentioning the dates written on his palm. Similarly, PW-2 Satyendra Singh has several criminal antecedents and several cases are pending against him. There was also material contradictions as regards demand of money by the accused Officer-in- charge. CW-2 states that he arrived at police station at about 3:00 A.M., but CW-3 Ganesh Turi states that at that time Officer-in-charge was not present at police station. The learned Appellate Court has further justified the conduct of accused Officer-in-charge in view of the fact that he proceeded to the village of the complainant after receiving confidential information that some criminals have assembled there and planning to commit offence. The Station Diary, in this regard was also made. The complainant seeing the police personnel started fleeing away but he fell down and sustained injuries. CW-6 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh has also opined no visible injury on the body of the complainant except swelling on left elbow and knee joint. The learned Appellate court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence adduced by the defence and arrived at conclusion that complainant and his son have several criminal antecedents and are known criminals and their testimony suffers from material contradiction and discrepancies, the learned Appellate Court 9 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2017) has also arrived at conclusion that no offence has been committed by the then Officer-in-charge (opposite party no. 2). The subsequent even of 14.10.2002 regarding commission of theft in the house of the complainant by the Officer-in-charge (opposite party no. 2) also found to be motivated and no such occurrence ever took place. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and find that the learned Appellate Court has taken different view form the learned Trial Court on the basis of sound reasons while setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad against the accused, who happens to be the Officer-in- charge of Jogta police station at the time of alleged occurrence. Therefore, I do not find any merits in this Revision application calling for any interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2014. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. 15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated:14/05/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 15/05/2026