2026:JHHC:14653 1 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (S.J.) No. 02 of 2025 ----- (Against the judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed in SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2020 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2019 by the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj) Ashish Kumar Paswan aged about 36 years son of Ramesh Dushadh @ Ramesh Paswan, resident of village Karamdih, P.O. Purabdiha, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau --- --- Appellant Versus 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Sidharth Shankar Dubey aged about 51 years son of Late Suryadeo Dubey; 3.Parikshit Dubey aged about 56 years son of Late Suryadeo Dubey; Both resident of village Karamdih, P.O. Purabdiha, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau. --- --- Respondents ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Alam, A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 to 3 : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel the appellant; learned A.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 3. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed in SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2020 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2019 by the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby the learned Court has acquitted the respondent no. 2 and 3 of all the charges i.e., under Section 504 & 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of a 2026:JHHC:14653 2 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 complaint case by the appellant- complainant Ashish Paswan being Complaint Case No. 2119 of 2018 which has subsequently been converted into an F.I.R being Chainpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2019. 4. The case of prosecution in brief is that the instant case is based upon a complaint petition of the informant Ashish Kumar Paswan wherein it is alleged that on 05.11.2018 at about 12.00 hours he had gone to Block office for some work and when he was to return, accused Parikshit Dubey started abusing him by naming his caste and also started assaulting him by means of fist, slaps and told him to leave his land otherwise he along with his family will be taken up. He has further alleged that in Khata no. 1 plot no. 94 area 14 decimal land was allotted to his grandfather through Vasgit Parcha by Bihar Government and in the same khata and plot about58 decimal land has been grabbed by the accused persons and they are cultivating on the said land since 10 years and whenever the informant and his family members demanded that land, the accused persons used to give threatening with dire consequences. They always used to abuse them and also throw garbage in front of his door and use the place for nature's call and due to which they are unable to go into their house due to fear. 5. Learned C.J.M sent the complaint u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the concerned P.S. for registration of a case. On the basis of above facts, the instant case has been registered against the accused persons. 6. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 31.03.2020 against the accused Parikshit Dubey and on 07.02.2021 against accused Sidharth Shanka Dubey and accordingly cognizance was taken. 7. Charges were framed under sections 504 & 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused persons- private respondents and on explaining all the facts and circumstances of the allegations to them, they pleaded not 2026:JHHC:14653 3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate the charge altogether nine prosecution witnesses were examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1 – Ful Kumari Devi II. PW-2 Navneet Kumar Dubey P.W.1 and 2, both have simply deposed that there was an altercation between the parties and no occurrence of assault took place. In cross- examination they have deposed that they have not seen the occurrence. III. PW-3 Ashish Kr. Paswan- He is the informant of the case. In his examination in chief has de-posed that on 11.12.2018 he had gone to the Chainpur block to participate in Mukhymanti Jan Sambad program. Meanwhile Parikshit Dubey abused him saying that he has no right in the land and also assaulted him. Further when he reached at home in the evening Parikshit Dubey and his brother Sidharth Shankar Dubey came at his house and threatened him to shot. Then he lodged the complaint case after 2-3 days. In his cross-examination he has deposed that he had filed a case before C.O. Chainpur bearing Misc. case no. 21/2018-19. The witness further admitted that there is land dispute between the accused and him. There used to be quarrel intermittently with the accused persons regarding land dispute. He did not inform occurrence of assault to the police. At the time of occurrence there were none else except the accused and him. IV. PW -4 Shiv Kumaari Devi - She is the wife of the informant. In her examination in chief she has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 6 p.m when she returned her home, she saw large no. of stones were thrown outside her house and when she entered into her house her daughter in-law Upasna told that at about 3.00 p.m Sidharth Shankar Dubey has assaulted on her 2026:JHHC:14653 4 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 back and on next day when she went to inquire, then Sidharth Shankar Dubey had gone to field to plough. The witness further in her cross-examination has deposed that she was not at home at the time of occurrence and she has deposed in court what her daughter in-law told to her. V. P.W.5 Ramesh Dushadh - In his examination in chief He has deposed that the occurrence took place in the year 2018 when he was constructing latrine then the accused person prohibited him to construct the same and the accused persons asked him to vacate the field and abused him saying him Dushadh and Chamar. After 10 days of occurrence, when his son had gone to block the accused persons assaulted his son. He has stated in his cross-examination that his son had filed a case for demarction of the land and the accused Parikshit Dubey has filed Title Suit No. 148 of 2020 for declaration of the suit land. VI. P.W.6 Upasana Kumari- In her examination in chief has deposed that on the date of occurrence the accused persons threw stones in her courtyard and when she came out she saw that large number of stones were lying at her door. The accused Tipu Dubey abused her saying Chamar. In her cross- examination she has deposed that she did not state aforesaid fact to the police in her statement. There has been a land dispute with the accused persons since long. VII. P.W.7 Sakshi Kumari- She is a minor girl and has stated in her examination in chief that when she went out for the nature’s call, w/o Budhan Dubey assaulted her. VIII. P.W.8-Surjit Kumar- He is the Investigating Officer of the Case. During course of investigation the witnesses supported the case of prosecution in their statement. The witness has further proved the endorsement on the complaint petition which is marked Ext.P-2/P.W.8. During the course of cross- 2026:JHHC:14653 5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 examination, the defence has succeeded to elicit that the informant, Shiv Kumari Devi, Ramesh Dushadh did not state before him what they have deposed before the court in their evidence. IX. P.W.9-Sandip Kumar Gupta-He is another Investigating Officer, who has simply submitted the charge-sheet. 9. The prosecution has also adduced some documentary evidences as under: I. Exhibit P-1- Complaint petition no. 2119 of 2018 and signature of complainant on it. II. Exhibit P-2 – Endorsement on the complaint petition. 10. After culmination of the trial the learned Trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of all the charges levelled against them. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Trial Court has acquitted the private respondents on the following ground: a. The cause of altercation is a bonafide land dispute between the parties and not because of the fact that the informant belongs to the member of Scheduled Caste community. b. The witnesses have improved their statement and deposed a different story, which is inconsistent, as is evident from the deposition of the I.O. c. Witnesses have deviated from the prosecution story. 12. Thus, the learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidences has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused persons- private respondents and accordingly, judgment of acquittal has been passed. 13. It is well settled principle of law that evaluation of the evidence is in the domain of the Court. What is relevant is that the evidence, 2026:JHHC:14653 6 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 02 of 2025 which has been brought on record, has to be considered in right perspective. 14. In the present case, from perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Court below has considered each and every evidence in detail and after going through the settled principle of evaluation of evidence, has found the evidences are not acceptable or not enough for convicting the accused persons - private respondents herein. 15. In that view of the matter, This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed in SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2020 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2019 by the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj. 16. In the result, the present acquittal appeal stands dismissed. 17. Let the trial court record be sent back to the concerned court below. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 13th May, 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026