2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 1 |21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 489 of 2004 …… [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2002] …… Abdul Hakim @ Hakim Mian son of Late Faruk Mian, resident of village Parsa, Police Station – Dumari, District – Gumla .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent …… P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… For the Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. …… JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 07.05.2026 Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Rakim Mian died 14 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 2 |21 years' back and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 11.02.2026. This appeal is heard on behalf of above named sole appellant. 3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Gumla in S.T. No.242 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant along with deceased appellant have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 25.04.2002 in the evening, informant was in his house along with his sister and other family members. It is alleged that at about 07:30 p.m., Rakim Mian (deceased appellant No.2) arrived at the house of the informant and told to his father to go to police station as his father has seen him assaulting Kamlesh Kawar. The informant's father declined to have seen the said occurrence, in the meantime, Hakim Mian also came there and started dragging informant's father towards outside of the house. Thereafter, both the accused persons took informant's father by assaulting him by fist and slaps towards their own house. It is alleged that informant was under 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 3 |21 impression that the accused persons are taking his father to police station, hence, they kept mum. It is further alleged that in the next day morning at about 06:30 a.m. Rakim Mian (deceased) again came to the informant's house and said come with me and see what your father is talking. Upon this, informant sent his mother at first and after sometime followed his mother along with sister and was going on cycle and saw that his mother was returning weepingly saying that informant's father has died. The informant leaving his sister called upon his elder brother Sudhu Sai and went to place of occurrence at the house of accused persons and found dead body of his father lying in front of the house of Rakim Mian. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant Munu Sai @ Letan Sai recorded by S.I. Md. Aftab Ahmed, Officer-In- Charge, Dumri Police Station, Gumla dated 26.04.2002 near the house of Rakim Mian at about 11 hours, the F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named accused persons for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where S.T. Case No.242 of 2002 was registered. The appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by prosecution. Apart from oral evidences following documentary 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 4 |21 evidences have also been adduced by prosecution :- Exhibit 1 : Signature of Munu Sai on fardbeyan Exhibit 2 : Post-mortem Report of deceased Exhibit 3 : Fardbeyan Exhibit 4 : Signature of Aftab on inquest report Exhibit 5 : Endorsement on fardbeyan Exhibit 6 : Carbon copy of inquest report Exhibit 7 : Formal F.I.R. 7. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to enmity. However, no oral or documentary evidence have been adduced by defence. 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record arrived at conclusion about guilt of the appellants for the offence of murder and sentenced them as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. 9. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The version contained in the F.I.R. is that the appellants took away the deceased by assaulting him through fat and fist towards their own house, does not find support by the wife and sons of the deceased in their evidence. The witnesses have also given a contradictory statement regarding place of occurrence. The appellants were involved in this case only on the 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 5 |21 basis of suspicion without attributing any motive for commission of murder of the deceased. No incriminating material was recovered from the possession of appellants showing their complicity in commission of murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the allegation of assaulting the deceased is only against the Rakim Mian (deceased) by slaps and fists and dragging him and both the accused persons were involved merely on the suspicion because dead body of deceased was lying in front of his house. The very genesis of the occurrence is assault given to the son of P.W.1 by Rakim Mian which was witnessed by the deceased. Hence, he was brought out from his house to go to police station. This fact itself is not proved by P.W.1 Lalka Kawar whose son was victim of assault by Rakim Mian, therefore, the very genesis of prosecution story falls on ground. The conduct of eye witnesses is also unnatural in not informing any of the villagers in the night itself that his father has been taken away by accused persons. Therefore, the story projected by the informant is absolutely false and fabricated and the appellants were involved in this case only on the basis of suspicion, since the dead body was found in front of their house. It is further pointed out that P.W.6 Khuni Devi, widow of the deceased has stated that she along with her daughter Manpait Bai (P.W.7) went to police station and disclosed the entire incident. As against it, the fardbeyan of Munu 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 6 |21 Sai (P.W.8) was recorded by police at the place of occurrence. The most crucial thing is that the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) got information about the occurrence through rumour and proceeded to place of occurrence, thereafter, fardbeyan of informant was recorded, inquest report and other process were adopted. It is further submitted that the main allegation of assault is against the appellant No.2 Rakim Mian, who has been died. The Postmortem Report of the deceased also shows that he got injuries due to fall on earth. Most of the injuries are bruises and abrasion except the fracture of ribs. The learned Trial Court has ignored the vital contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses and failed to properly consider the cumulative effect of the testimony of all the oral witnesses which falsify the prosecution case, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellant. No specific role has been attributed against the present appellant rather it is stated by the informant that his father was thrown by the accused Rakim Mian. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution, no ingredients of offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is established rather due to some assault the deceased had died which was not intentional or with knowledge to inflict such injuries which may in all probability kill him. 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 7 |21 In the alternative, it is submitted that the offence falls under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. The appellant has remained in custody since 15.06.2002 and granted bail vide order 04.02.2008 during the pendency of this appeal which is about 5 years and seven months. It is further submitted that no specific overt act attributed to the appellant Abdul Hakim. He has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, it is prayed that conviction and sentence of the appellant may be reduced to imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. instead of life imprisonment as provided for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. defending the impugned judgment on merits has submitted that both the appellants dragged the deceased from his house and brought to their own home situated at a distance of one and half kilometer from the house of the deceased and after brutally assaulting him, thrown the dead body in front of their house. The injuries on skull were sufficient to cause death. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered overall aspects of the case and the material evidence on record. There is no reason to take a different view from that of the learned Trial Court. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 8 |21 11. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in light of the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant suffers from any error of law or not ?" 13. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we have to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial. 14. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Lalka Kawar has stated nothing about the occurrence and also denied any occurrence of assault which was alleged to have taken place with his children at the hands of Hakim Mian. His both sons are residing at Punjab and earning there. He has also solemnized marriage of his daughter. No one was murdered in his family. Therefore, this witness has stated nothing showing involvement of accused persons in any occurrence. P.W.2 Rukmain Devi is daughter of deceased. On the date of occurrence, she was at her matrimonial home. Later on, she came to know from his mausera brother Basant that Hakim and Rakim have killed her father. Therefore, this witness has also stated nothing about her personal knowledge of the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 9 |21 P.W.3 Bifan Kawar has been declared hostile by the prosecution and flatly denied about the occurrence or prevent anything heard by them. P.W.4 Azama Khatun has only seen the dead body of Maru Sai lying under a tree on road. She has stated nothing else about the occurrence. P.W.5 Fuleshwari Devi has stated a different story that in the night, she heard abusive words between Rakim and Hakim Mian. In the next day morning, she saw dead body of Maru Sai in front of the house of Rakim Mian. She also admits in her cross- examination that she has disclosed before the police also that Rakim and Hakim were scuffling with each other. Therefore, this witness is also of no consequence for the purpose of prosecution. P.W.6 Khuni Devi is the wife of deceased. She has also deviated from the version of F.I.R. as disclosed by her own son. According to her evidence, at first Rakim came to her house along with Hakim. Rakim started abusing to her husband and Hakim caught hold of her husband, brought out near the door and thrashed him on ground. Thereafter, Rakim also thrashed her husband on ground. Both the accused persons assaulting to her husband brought him to their own house. In the next day morning, her son was being searched by Rakim and came to her home and called her son saying that his father is talking something. She 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 10 |21 proceeded with Rakim and her son went to serve straw to cattle. Later on, her son Munu Sai was also coming to the place of occurrence by his cycle. Her son told that he is going to Jaspur. This witness went to the place of occurrence at the house of Rakim Mian and saw the dead body of her husband with severe injuries. She returned to her home after seeing the dead body of her husband and this incident was spread in the village. She has further deposed that both the accused persons have killed her husband. In her cross-examination, she admits that the house of accused persons is situated at a distance of one and half kilometer from her own house, in between there are 20 to 30 houses. She further admits that in the night none of the villagers assembled and she along with other family members slept in the night and did not meet with any person in the village. She has denied the suggestion of defence that her husband was heavily intoxicated and sustained injuries due to fall. She further admits that on the next day morning also, when Rakim came to her home, she did not talk with any villager. Her son Munu Sai had gone to Jaspur, hence, she could not talk with him. Police has also not interrogated with her about the occurrence rather she was scolded by police. She further admits good relationship with the accused persons. She also states that she along with her daughter went to 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 11 |21 police station which is situated at a distance of three kilometer and returned along with police. The police also recorded her statement along with her daughter. The dead body was taken by police at about 07:00 to 08:00 p.m. She has denied the suggestion of defence that no such occurrence took place and she has falsely implicated the accused persons only on the basis of suspicion. P.W.7 Manpait Bai is the daughter of deceased and an eye witness of the occurrence. According to her evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 07:30 p.m., she was present at her paternal home, meanwhile, Rakim came to her home and called upon her father Maru Sai saying that come with me how you have seen assaulting the son of “Lalka Kawar (P.W.1)’’ just thereafter Hakim (present appellant) also arrived and both of them assaulting her father took away to their home. When her father did not return in the night then again in the morning Rakim came to her home and told to come with him and see what your father is saying. Thereafter, this witness along with her mother and brother went to the house of Rakim. At first her mother went thereafter, she along with her brother were going on cycle but in the way her mother met and told that accused persons have killed her father. My brother Munu Sai went to Jaspur for informing about the incident to her another brother. She also went to place of occurrence and saw dead body of her father lying in front of the house of Rakim 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 12 |21 sustaining injuries on head where inquest report was also prepared and she put her thumb impression. In her cross-examination, she admits that when the accused persons came to her house, no villagers were present and in the night also no villagers were informed about the occurrence. Although there are houses of several neighbourers namely Viphan, Radha, Veeru etc. and there was cordial relationship with the neighbours. P.W.8 Munu Sai @ Letan Sai is the informant-cum-son of the deceased. He has also consistently reiterated the version of his fardbeyan and deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 07:30 p.m., he was present in his house along with his mother and sister and other family members. Rakim came to his house and complained his father as to when he has seen him assaulting the son of Lalka Kawar (P.W.1) and also said to accompany with him to police station. In the meantime, Hakim also arrived and both started assaulting to his father by fist and slaps and brought towards their own house and killed his father. He has further stated that in the next day morning at about 06:30 a.m. Rakim again came to the house of this witness and said to accompany him to his house but this witness sent his mother first and this witness along with his sister proceeded towards the house of Rakim by cycle but his mother met in the way and told that his 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 13 |21 father has been died. Thereafter, he went to Jaspur for giving information to his elder brother Sudhu Sai and returned about 12:00 p.m. Police also arrived at the place of occurrence where his fardbeyan was recorded and he signed over it which is marked as Ext.1. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly admits that in the night the accused persons did not talk with him or his mother or sister and straightforward talk with his father and took him away saying that they are going to police station. He did not complain to any villager about the said occurrence in the night and all of the family members slept in the night. In the next day morning, Rakim again came to his house, thereafter, his mother went along with him. There is nothing else in his cross- examination to rebut his above testimony. He has also not stated about any enmity with the accused persons. P.W.9 Dr. Ramesh Prasad has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following :- Rigor mortis absent in upper limb but present in lower limb. Injuries : (i) Bruise over left forehead 4" x 3" with fracture of fronto parietal bone of skull with contusion of brain. (ii) Bruise of left maxillary region 3" x 2". (iii) Abrasion of left knee 3" x 1". 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 14 |21 (iv) Bruise of mid sternum 2" x 1". (v) Fracture of 4th, 5th, 6th rib right side and fracture of 5th, 6th, 7th rib left side with bony injury with blood in pleural cavity. It is opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem. Injury Nos.1 and 5 were found to be grievous and injury Nos.2 to 4 is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Cause of death is opined to be brain injury and lung injury. He has proved the post-mortem report of deceased marked as Ext.2. P.W.10 Uday Singh is Advocate Clerk and formal witness who has proved fardbeyan of informant in the writing of Md. Aftab Ahamed, the then Officer-In-Charge marked as Ext.3 and signature of Md. Aftab Ahamed on inquest report of deceased as Ext.4. P.W.11 Md. Aftab Ahmad is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence, on 26.04.2002 at about 09:00 a.m., he got information through rumour that in Village Parsa a dead body is lying in front of the house of Rakim Mian. He made the station diary entry and proceeded to Village Parsa and reached there at about 11:00 a.m. where he recorded fardbeyan of Munu Sai @ Letan Sai son of Late Maru Sai in front of the house of Rakim Mian. He has further proved the fardbeyan drawn by him 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 15 |21 bearing signature of Munu Sai as Ext.5 which is already Ext.3 proved by P.W.10. He also prepared inquest report in presence of two independent witnesses and further proved the carbon copy of inquest report as Ext.6 which has already been marked Ext.4 by P.W.10. He has further proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.7 signed by him. In the course of investigation, he recorded restatement of the informant and also interrogated with witnesses Manpait Bai, Sudhu Sai, Khuni Devi, Rukmain Devi, Fuleshwari Devi, Ajma Khatun and Bifan Kawar and also visited the place of occurrence. According to this witness, first place of occurrence is house of informant Munu Sai made of mud and roof with mud tiles consisting of three rooms and one courtyard. It was alleged that the accused persons dragged the deceased from the room of southern side. The second place of occurrence is half-built room in front of the house of accused Rakim Mian in between the house of accused and this room, half constructed room, the dead body of Maru Sai was found. He sent the dead body for postmortem and also received the Postmortem Report. He also recorded the statement of Lalka Kawar (P.W.1) and finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, he reiterates that he came to know about the occurrence through rumour but he has not mentioned the 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 16 |21 sanha number in the case diary. He has denied the suggestion of defence that the informant has disclosed before him that some unknown persons have killed his father. He further reiterates that the dead body of deceased was found at a distance of 7 ft. from the house of Rakim Mian. He has further admitted that informant Munu Sai has not stated before him that Rakim Mian thrown his father after lifting from his house. He further states that in between the house of accused and informant, there is distance of one and a half kilometer. He has denied the suggestion of defence that without sufficient evidence he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 15. . We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of ocular witnesses of this case. P.W.8 informant, Munu Sai @ Letan Sai, P.W.6 Khuni Devi, wife of the deceased and P.W.7 Manpait Bai, daughter of the deceased, have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence and other witnesses of facts are either hearsay or derived knowledge from the above three witnesses. It is quite apparent from the evidence of P.W.6 wife of the deceased that Rakim came to her house, who was scolding her husband because her husband was claiming to be a witness of assault committed by Rakim Mian with son of Lalka Kawar (P.W.1). The claim of this witness that her husband was thrashed on ground forcibly has been contradicted by the evidence of Investigating Officer. There 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 17 |21 was simple allegation of assaulting the deceased by fists and slaps while taking away to their own home. P.W.7 has also claimed that Rakim Mian came to her house and called upon her father later on, Hakim also came and both took away her father assaulting by fist and slaps. In the night, her father did not return and in the morning also only Rakim came and told to her brother to come with him and see what his father is saying. The same thing has been reiterated by informant Munu Sai (P.W.8) that Rakim Mian came to his house and was scolding to his father due to witness of assault given to son of Lalka Kawar. Later on, Hakim also came and both started assaulting by fists and slaps and took his father on pretext that they are going to police station. It is also apparent that no search of deceased was made by any of the witnesses, who are none else but son, daughter and wife of the deceased. Not a single neighbour was also complained of about the said occurrence. Even in the early morning within 06:00 a.m. to 07:00 a.m. all the above witnesses came to know that Maru Sai is lying dead in front of the house of accused persons. No information was given to police even by any other person. It is apparent from the evidence of P.W.11 that he came to know about the incident through rumour. Such conduct of the aforesaid witnesses appears to be very unnatural considering the seriousness of the offence alleged against the appellants. The evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 18 |21 P.W.8 unequivocally proves allegations of taking away the deceased by Rakim Mian in pretext of going to police station because he was witness of assault given to son of Lalka Kawar (P.W.1). In this connection, the evidence of P.W.1 also becomes more important. According to his evidence, no incident of assault ever took place with his sons by any person including the Rakim Mian. He has two sons who are earning at Punjab. This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution nor anything has been asked in his cross-examination showing the very genesis of the occurrence as relied upon by the prosecution. It appears that the ocular witnesses of facts have projected the appearance of present appellant with allegation that he was also assaulting by fists and slaps to the deceased. Prosecution has not been able to prove any overt act against the present appellant Hakim Mian except assault given by fists and slaps to the deceased. No incriminating articles have been seized showing his involvement in commission of murder of the deceased. Even in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant Hakim Mian has been simply asked only one question that on 25.04.2002 at about 19:30 hours, he assaulting Maru Sai pulled out from his house and took to his own home and in the next day morning dead body of Maru Sai was lying in front of his house. It further transpires that both the accused persons are real brothers. 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 19 |21 The genesis of occurrence is the assault given to the son of Lalka Kawar by Rakim Mian. There is also no forceful dragging of the deceased towards the home of accused. In view of the fact that he was proceeding to police station at the instance of Rakim Mian. In view of above facts and circumstances and the nature of injury sustained by the deceased except suspicion raised against the appellant Hakim Mian nothing else has been brought on record. Admittedly, there was no dispute between informant's father and the appellant Hakim Mian. There is also no evidence that present appellant participated in assaulting the deceased other than by fists and slaps as stated by eye witnesses. It is also not proved by the prosecution that both Rakim Mian and Hakim Mian in furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased have acted in concerted manner. Therefore, the case of appellant Hakim Mian stands on different footing who had no animus to kill the deceased and his participation is also not proved in giving murderous assault to the deceased. 16. In view of above discussion and reasons, we find that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while appreciating the evidence of the ocular witnesses and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The appellant might have caused some injuries by dragging but cannot be held causing murder of the deceased. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 20 |21 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable under law rather the case falls under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. against the present appellant. 17. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and it is altered and modified to under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 18. So far as sentence is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of the occurrence as well as the overt act attributed against the appellant and also in view of the fact that more than 20 years have been elapsed from the date of occurrence and the appellant has sustained the agony of trial for such a considerable long period and also undergone about six years' custody during trial of the case, appears to have sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant is also reduced and he is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. 19. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence of the appellant to the extent as stated above. 20. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 2026:JHHC:13854-DB Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.489 of 2004 P a g e 21 |21 21. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 22. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to process fee of Rs.7,500/- (Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) to Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Prasad within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 23. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. 24. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent to concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 07/05/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded on: 08/05/2026