2026:JHHC:14377 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 ---- [Against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- III, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2015] ---- Pushpa Devi, aged about 53 years, wife of Subhash Singh, resident of Ward No.8, Amlo Basti, P.O. Amlo, P.S. Bermo, Bokaro, District-Bokaro …. …. Appellant(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Soni Devi, daughter of Satish Pandey 3. Kalawati Devi, daughter of Dilip Kumar Pandey 4. Malti Devi, daughter of Manishankar Pandey 5. Sunanina Kumari, daughter of Mani Shankar Pandey 6. Reena Kumari, daughter of Kedar Pandey 7. Meena Devi, daughter of Bhagat Singh 8. Bharat Singh, son of Late Deo Nandan Singh (died as per office note) 9. Ajay Kumar @ Pappu, son of Late Nirmal Yadav 10. Akshay Kumar Pandey, son of Manglanand Pandey 11. Nand Kishor, son of Mani Shankar Pandey 12. Satish Kumar Pandey, son of Mani Shankar Pandey 13. Dilip Kumar Pandey, son of Mani Shankar Pandey 14. Mani Shankar Pandey, son of Late Jag Naryan Pandey …. …. Respondent(s) ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Kaushik Chakraborty, Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 to 14 : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Adv. ---- By Court: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s), learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 14. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 2 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the learned court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo P.S. Case No.157 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1071 of 2005 (T.R. No.499 of 2015), whereby the trial court has convicted the accused persons under Sections 147, 448 & 149/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 147 of IPC. They have been further sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 448/149 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story in short is that on 25.12.2005 at about 1:30 PM Avinash Singh and Sohan Singh both sons of informant were assaulted by Udit Pandey alias Mungeri and Neeraj Pandey. Sohan Singh gave information about this incident to the informant. Thereafter the informant told Mani Shankar Pandey and Kedar Pandey that their sons were assaulting her sons and that why are they not trying to make them understand which infuriated them and Kedar Pandey, Manishankar Pandey and the women of their house started abusing her. After sometime at about 2 PM the accused Kedar Pandey, Mani Shankar, Pandey Dilip Pandey, Satish Pandey, Nand Kishore Pandey, Udit Pandey, Girish Pandey, Neeraj Pandey, Dheeraj Pandey, Akshay Pandey, Ajay Yadav alias Pappu, Bharat Singh, Meena Devi, Reena Kumari, Sunaina kumari wife of Manishankar Pandey, wife of Kedar Pandey, wife of Satish Pandey came to the house of the informant and forcibly entered into the house of the informant and started assaulting her. The accused Kedar Pandey asked the co-accused persons to take out weapon to kill the informant. All the accused persons assaulted the informant differently as a result, she fell down on the ground. At that time the informant and her younger son Sohan was in the house. Being scared Sohan Singh gave the keys of Godrej almirahs to them and told about the weapon kept in it. The accused Akshay Pandey and Ajay Jadhav took out the revolver from the Almirah. The informant requested Kedar Pandey not to take the revolver since it was loaded and that her husband would be arrested. In the meantime 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 3 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 Dilip Pandey assaulted the informant with a brick. They were trying to snatch the revolver from each other because of which the revolver has fired. The informant did not know if anybody is sustained injury from that gunshot. The informant also does not know who took away the revolver. Subhash Singh husband of the informant, who came back from his duty from CCL, Dhori was also assaulted by the accused persons because of which he fell unconscious. The accused persons also took away cash of Rs.15,000/- and gold weighing 30 grams and other ornaments from the house of the informant. After sometime the informant's gotni came and locked them in a room and give information to the police on phone after which the police came and took the informant and her husband Subhash Singh to the hospital for treatment. The reason of incident is said to be a land dispute. 4. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether six witnesses have been examined. i. P.W.-1 is Subhash Singh (husband of the informant). He has stated that while he was on duty at Dhori, his nephew Rakesh Singh informed him telephonically that the accused persons had entered his house and assaulted his wife and son. He further stated that his wife (informant) sustained injury on her forehead and the accused persons were demanding his licensed revolver, which was thereafter taken away from the almirah. He has further stated that accused Akshay Kumar Pandey and Ajay Azad assaulted her. The accused persons also took away cash of Rs.15,000/- and gold ornaments from the almirah. During the occurrence, the revolver accidentally fired. He has further stated that he sustained injuries on his head, cheek and leg, for which stitches were applied, P.W.-6 was also injured. Thereafter, on information given by P.W.-2, the police arrived and got him and P.W.-3 admitted to the Regional Hospital, Dhori, from where he was referred to CCL Hospital, Gandhinagar, Ranchi. According to him, the occurrence took place due to a dispute regarding Rasta. ii. P.W.-2 is Malti Devi, who is the Bhabhi of P.W.-1 and Gotni of P.W.-3 and she has stated that on hearing hulla, she went to the 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 4 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 house of P.W.-1 and saw the accused persons armed with danda assaulting the inmates and ransacking the house. She has stated that the accused persons took away ornaments, cash of Rs.15,000/- and the revolver of P.W.-1 from the almirah. She has further stated that the accused Akshay Pandey fired from the revolver, causing gunshot injury to Girijesh Pandey. P.W.-1, P.W.-3. Their children were found lying injured, and P.W.-3 had sustained injury on her head. Thereafter, she sheltered them in her room and informed the police, who later shifted the injured persons to the hospital. iii. P.W.-3 is Pushpa Devi (the informant) has also supported the occurrence. She has sustained injury over her head, chest and elbow. She suffered bleeding from her head. Accused namely, Sunaina Kumari, took away chain from her and another accused demanded licensee revolver of her husband and threatened to eliminate her. During altercation, the gun was incidentally fired. Accused Akshay Pandey took away the revolver and escaped from the place of occurrence. iv. P.W.-4, Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh is the Medical Officer, who have examined the injured and proved the injury reports as Ext.-2, 3 & 4. While examining the injured, namely, Pushpa Devi, he found the injury simple in nature. He has examined another injured, namely, Subhash Singh and found the injury of fracture grievous in nature. v. P.W.-5 is Vikash Kumar Singh, who has declared hostile. vi. P.W.-6 is Sohan Singh (son of the informant), who has deposed that after trespassing, all the 18 accused persons have assaulted his mother and taken away the licensee revolver which was loaded. When his father came he was also assaulted. 5. The prosecution has exhibited following documents:- Exhibit-1 Fardbeyan Exhibit-2 Injury report of Pushpa Devi (PW-3) 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 5 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 Exhibit-3 Injury report of Subhash Singh (PW-1) Exhibit-4 Revised injury report of P.W.-1 6. The defense has also exhibited following documents:- Exhibit-A Certified copy of FIR of P.S. Case No.149 of 2005 filed by Reena Kumari Exhibit-B Certified copy of FIR Bermo P.S. 156 of 2005 Exhibit-C Certified copy of judgment of Bermo P.S. 156 of 2005 Exhibit-D Charge sheet of P.S. Case No.149 of 2005 7. The accused person has been charged under Sections 147/ 448/ 324/ 427 & 149 IPC and on culmination of trial, they have been convicted for aforesaid charge by the magisterial court. 8. Being aggrieved, an appeal has been filed being Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2015 and the appellate court after re-appreciation of the evidence has acquitted the accused person and against the said order of acquittal, the present acquittal appeal has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are injured witnesses and the brief statements of the witnesses are reproduced hereinbelow:- P.W.-1-Subhash Singh (husband of the informant and injured witness) he has stated that while he was on duty, he received information regarding the dispute. Thereafter, he came to his house and found that the accused persons, namely, Dilip Pandey, his wife Kalavati Devi, Manishankar Pandey, Jagannath Pandey, wife of Manishankar Pandey, Nandkishore Pandey, Udit Pandey, Kedar Pandey, wife of Kedar Pandey, Neeraj Pandey, Dheeraj Pandey, Akshay Kumar Pandey, Ajay Kumar, Bharat Singh, wife of Bharat Singh and about 20 other persons had trespassed into his house and assaulted his wife and son. Thereafter, they snatched away the revolver and also assaulted him. Further, they took away Rs.15,000/- from the almirah along with ornaments. He sustained injury on his right leg by a sharp-cutting weapon, for which stitches had to be applied. 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 6 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 P.W.-3-Pushpa Devi (informant and injured witness) has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, both her sons were assaulted by Udit Pandey and Neeraj Pandey. Thereafter, the informant told Manishankar Pandey and Kedar Pandey that their sons were assaulting her sons, whereupon all the accused persons started abusing her. At about 2:00 P.M. on the same day, all the accused persons came to her house, forcibly entered therein and started assaulting the informant. Accused Akshay Pandey and Ajay Yadav took out the revolver of his husband, which was kept in the almirah. In the meantime, Dilip Pandey assaulted her with a brick. When the husband of the informant, i.e. P.W.1 reached the house, all the accused persons assaulted him, as a result of which he became unconscious. The accused persons also took away cash amounting to Rs.15,000/- and gold ornaments weighing about 30 grams, including ear-rings and a chain valued of Rs.15,000/-. After the incident, the police came to the house and took them to Regional Hospital, Dhori. Referring to the above evidence, it has been submitted that there are injured witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.-3 and their injuries gets corroboration from the medical report which has been proved by the P.W.-4 i.e. the doctor and as such the conviction by the magisterial court was justified and reversal by the appellate court is not as per law and as such the judgment of conviction should be up held. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has supported the judgment of acquittal and has stated that:- i. The treating doctor has not been examined. ii. The age of the injury has not been disclosed. iii. The Investigation Officer has also not been examined. Thus, the place of occurrence, manner of commission of crime and the allegation that the arms i.e. revolver has been taken away also not gets substantiated by any evidence available on record as the possession of the 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 7 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 revolver has not been proved either by any documentary evidence or at least by producing licence. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that:- i. The only star evidence in favour of the victim is P.W.-1 and P.W.-3, who are the injured witnesses. ii. From analysis of the witnesses, it appears that there are exaggeration and that does not get support from medical evidence. iii. The treating doctor has not been examined rather P.W.-4 is a dentist not a surgeon who has given the opinion regarding fracture on the basis of X-ray report and even that X-ray report is not on record. 12. Thus, the opinion of the doctor is based upon non existing material on the record. 13. The allegation of snatching of the revolver does not gets any corroboration from the material evidence to the effect that no such evidence has been brought on record. Even the license of the arms has not been brought on record. 14. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. Thus, the place of occurrence does not gets proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the question put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is general and omnibus in nature which is not sufficient for imputing the common object upon the participant. 15. Thus, except the bald statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3, nothing is available on record even that does not gets corroboration. 16. Even, the I.O. has not been examined. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the place of occurrence, factum of theft of the revolver and the time of injury. 17. Thus, there is so many area of doubt and in such a doubtful situation, the conviction cannot be sustained and as such this Court finds that the appellate court has rightly passed by the judgment of acquittal. 2026:JHHC:14377 Page | 8 Acquittal Appeal No.01 of 2020 18. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal stands dismissed. 19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 12th May, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 18.05.2026