2026:JHHC:14760 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 458 of 2009 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2009 and 01.05.2009, respectively, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, in Special SC/ST Case No. 25 of 2006] -------- 1. Madan Lal Mahtha, son of Manpuran Mahtha 2. Mahadev Mahtha, son of Late Jyoti Lal Mahtha 3. Dinesh Kumar Mahtha @ Dinesh Mahtha, son of Late Ayodhya Mahtha 4. Vishwanath Mahtha, son of Balram Mahtha 5. Badrinath Mahtha, son of Mahadev Mahtha All residents of Village-Saharjori, P.O. & P.S.-Chandankyari, District-Bokaro ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 08.04.2026 Pronounced on 14/05/2026 1. Heard, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2009 and 01.05.2009, respectively, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro, in Spl. SC/ST Case No. 25 of 2006 (arising out of G.R. Case No.600 of 2003) whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 323/34 of I.P.C. and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled 2026:JHHC:14760 2 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.07.2003, while the informant (P.W.-5) along with his brother’s son-in-law, Vijay Rajak (P.W.-7) and his niece Sundara Devi (P.W.-6) were returning from Telidih to his village to attend marriage ceremony of his nephew and reached near Ratanpur Kowa Dara at about 06:30 P.M. where co- villager Mahadev Mahtha, Badrinath Mahtha, Vishwanath Mahtha, Madan Lal Mahtha and Dinesh Mahtha were sitting. It is alleged that Mahadev Mahtha signal to stop the vehicle and ordered the informant to come down when informant get down from the vehicle then Badri Nath Mahtha started abusing him in filthy language and said “SALA HARIZAN MERE SAMNE GARI SE GHUM RAHA HAI”. Thereafter, other three accused persons started assaulting to the informant by Palash stick (branch) and also threatened of dire consequences, if any, complaint is lodged by him and also stop the marriage. It is further alleged that the informant was busy in marriage ceremony and also in view of threat extended by accused persons, he made written report on 18.07.2003. On the basis of above information, Chandankyari P.S. Case No. 64 of 2003, was registered under Sections 341, 330 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against above named 5 accused persons for 2026:JHHC:14760 3 the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 504/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(10)(13) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. All the accused persons appeared before the Special Judge and denied from charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1-Pran Chandra Rajwar P.W.-2-Nitai Chandra Rajwar P.W.-3-Gurupado Rajwar P.W.-4-Madhusudan Rajwar P.W.-5-Rajendra Rajwar P.W.-6-Sundara Devi P.W.-7-Vijay Kumar Rajwar P.W.-8-Anuranjan Kistopha P.W.-9-Jeetu Rajwar 6. Apart from oral testimony following documentary evidence have also been adduced by prosecution. Exhibit-1-Signature of P.W.-1 on written report Exhibit-1/1-Signature of Nitai Chandra Rajwar on written report Exhibit-1/2-Signature of Madhusudan Rajwar on written report Exhibit-1/3-Signature of Guru Pado Rajwar on written report Exhibit-1/4-Signatue of Amar Rajwar on written report Exhibit-1/5-Signature of Rajendra Rajwar (informant) on written report. Exhibit-2-Endorsement on written report Exhibit-3-Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4-Entire Written Report. 7. On the other hand, no oral witness has been examined by defence but a documentary evidence Exhibit-A certified copy of voter list has 2026:JHHC:14760 4 been filed. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. It is pleaded that one plot of land was sold to Rajendra Rajwar (informant) to the accused persons but the informant was insisting to purchase one more piece of land adjacent to his purchased land which was declined, hence, he has falsely implicated the accused persons in this case. 8. The learned Trial Court after evaluating the evidence adduced by prosecution recorded findings about guilt of the appellants and sentenced to them as stated above. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that it was out and out a false case which was lodged after four days of the alleged occurrence. The reason for delay explained by the informant is also not convincing, no injury report of the informant was brought on record. The informant has mentioned the name of four persons as witnesses in his written report excluding the name of Sundara Devi and his brother’s son-in-law Vijay Kumar, who were alleged to be present at the time of occurrence with the informant. The five witnesses mentioned in the written report are not eye-witnesses of the occurrence rather managed by the informant to testify as per his instruction. 10. It is further submitted that only eye-witness of this occurrence are Vijay Kumar Rajwar, (P.W.-6) and Sundara Devi, (P.W.-7) who were accompanied with the informant in the vehicle, but they have simply stated that it was Mahadev Mahtha who intercepted them and informant was ordered to come down from the vehicle. P.W.-7, Vijay 2026:JHHC:14760 5 Kumar Rajwar and P.W.-6, Sundara Devi have stated that only Mahadev Mahtha said to her uncle “HARIZAN MERE SAMNE GARI ME CHALTA HAI” and assaulted by Palash stick (branch). It is further submitted that the P.W.-1, Pran Chandra Rajwar, P.W.-2, Nitai Chandra Rajwar, P.W.-3-Gurupado Rajwar, P.W.-4, Madhusudan Rajwar are hearsay witnesses of the alleged occurrence. As per F.I.R., the presence of above witnesses, at the place of occurrence has not been claimed by the informant rather they have been managed to corroborate the prosecution story. It is further submitted that P.W.-6, Sundara Devi, and P.W.-7, Vijay Kumar Rajwar were inside the car, therefore, what happened outside the car cannot be exactly deposed by them and they have also been interested to depose at the instance of P.W.-5, Rajendra Rajwar (informant). P.W.-8, Anuranjan Kistopha is the investigation officer and P.W.-9, Jeetu Rajwar are formal witnesses. It is further submitted that P.W.-5, Rajendra Rajwar has himself admitted in his evidence that he has purchased some land from Mahadev Mahtha and it is also admitted that the place of occurrence was a lonely place and a road not within public view. The Investigating Officer, Anuranjan Kistopha (P.W.-8) has also noted the place of occurrence as lonely place and public path. In order to verify the occurrence, the investigation officer has not interrogated with village-Mukhiya, Sarpanch or village- Chowkidar and the informant has also not told the above incident for four days to any of the villagers. It is further submitted that the investigating officer has also find the place of occurrence as lonely place and the village of informant and accused persons is situated at a 2026:JHHC:14760 6 distance of 1 K.M. and Ratanpur village is at a distance of 300 yards. In above circumstances also, the alleged occurrence has not happened within the public view and cannot come within the purview of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that no injury report was brought on record and even during investigation, the investigating officer has not found any swelling or redness on the body of the informant which also falsified the prosecution case. 11. Moreover, the possibility of false implication of the appellants only due to put pressure to purchase some other land from the accused persons cannot be ruled out. Except Mahadev Mahtha, no other appellants have been attributed with any specific overt act either abusing in the name of caste or humiliating the informant or assaulting him. Therefore, all the family members have been falsely roped in this case by the informant as a coercive tactics in the name of his caste to put pressure on the appellants to purchase their land. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses examined in this case. Except the informant, none of the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story, in spite of that the learned Trial Court has held the appellants guilty and sentenced them. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellants is absolutely based beyond the evidence available on record and suffers from serious error of law which is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:14760 7 contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly relied upon the evidence of informant as well as other eye-witnesses, who have consistently corroborated the prosecution story and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants. The specific plea taken by the appellants regarding land dispute and pressure put by the informant to sale some other land adjacent to the land earlier purchased by him from the accused persons has not been proved by any cogent evidence. The defence has also not examined any witness to support the above plea. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences charged against them. Hence, there is no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. It appears that altogether 9 witnesses were examined by prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against appellants. P.W.-1, Pran Chandra Rajwar has corroborated the versions of F.I.R. regarding abuse and assault meted with the informant at the hands of the appellants. But in his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he came to know about the occurrence from Rajendra Rajwar, the informant. Written report was written by police in his presence and he also signed over the written report. Although, this witness has claimed that he was fishing at the time of occurrence and reached there at that time the incident was over then Rajendra Rajwar 2026:JHHC:14760 8 told him that Mahadev Mahtha stopped his vehicle and ordered him to come down from the vehicle. He has stated nothing about humiliative words in the name of caste used by the accused Mahadev Mahtha. Moreover, the names of other four appellants have also not been disclosed to him. P.W.-2, Nitai Chandra Rajwar, although, this witness has supported the contents of written report of the informant but in his cross-examination he clearly admits that on the date of lodging report itself the incident was told to him by informant Rajendra Rajwar but this fact was not disclosed by him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this witness is also hearsay witness and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony as an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.-3, Gurupado Rajwar has also claimed to be eye-witness and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 06:00-06:30 P.M., he was going to discharge nature’s call near the pond at Kowa Dara, where he heard some hulla and went near the place then accused persons were abusing and assaulting to Rajendra Rajwar. In his cross-examination, he admits that police has interrogated him about the occurrence but denied that in his statement before police he has stated that he has heard about the occurrence and not seen the same. This witness also admits that at the time of discharge nature’s call 2-4 persons were also present with him and disclosed their names as Pran Chand Rajwar, Amar Rajwar, Madhusudan Rajwar and Nitai Chandra Rajwar. The testimony of Madhusudan Rajwar and Nitai Chandra Rajwar, who have been examined in this case is absolutely 2026:JHHC:14760 9 different, they have claimed to fishing in the pond. This witness happens to be uncle of the informant and he also admits that just after the occurrence, he did not talk with the informant about what happened with him. P.W.-4, Madhusudan Rajwar has also claimed that he was fishing in the pond at the time of occurrence. He saw that Rajendra Rajwar along with his brother’s son-in-law and niece was coming in a car for attending marriage in his village then Mahadev Mahtha, Badrinath Mahtha, Vishwanath Mahtha, Madan Lal Mahtha and Dinesh Mahtha stopped the vehicle and all the accused persons said that Radh (Chhota Jati) “HARIZAN TUM GARI SE UTRO, TUMHARA BAAP DADA BHI KABHI HAMARE SAMNE SE NAHI GUJARTA HAI, TUM AISE KAISE HIMMAT KIYA GARI LEKAR SAMNE SE PASS KARNE KI” then vehicle was stopped and Rajendra Rajwar was pulled out from the vehicle by Mahadev Mahtha and Badrinath Mahtha started abusing and assaulting him by Palash stick (branch). The very aforesaid words as claimed by the accused persons are not the case of the informant. It appears that this witness has materially exaggerated the prosecution story, which falsifies his evidence. In his cross-examination, he also claims that he along with Pran Chand Rajwar, Guru Pado Rajwar, Nitai Chandra Rajwar and Amar Rajwar were catching fish from the pond which belongs to Bhumiyar community of his village. This witness has further stated a new story that hearing hulla of bachao bachao raised by Rajendra Rajwar, he along with all the five persons, who were fishing went to the place of 2026:JHHC:14760 10 occurrence. He also admits that he along with Pran Chand Rajwar, Gurupado Rajwar, Amar Rajwar, Madhusudan Rajwar and Nitai Chandra Rajwar went to police station after receiving message by village-Chowkidar, but he does not know the contents of written report. He has denied the suggestion of defence that being caste men and relative of the informant, he has given false evidence at the instance of informant. P.W.-5, Rajendra Rajwar is the informant, victim of this case. According to his evidence in the year 2003 in month of Asadh/Sawan on 14th Day in the evening, he along with his niece and brother’s son- in-law was returning to his home after attending marriage ceremony and when reached near Kowadara, then Mahadev Mahtha stopped him by raising his hand and Badrinath Mahtha, Vishwanath Mahtha, Madan Lal Mahtha and Dinesh Mahtha pulled out him from the vehicle saying him Harizan started abusing and assaulting. Above four accused persons were assaulting him by Palash stick (branch) and he sustained mark of injuries on his body. He was also threatened not to lodge any case otherwise he will be killed. He has proved his signature over the written report as Exhibit-1/5. It appears that this witness has completely changed his initial version as contained in the written report wherein allegation against Mahadev Mahtha was that he stopped him and against Badrinath Mahtha who said that “SALA HARIZAN MERE SAMNE GARI SE GHUM RAHA HAI” but in his evidence during trial, this witness states nothing against Mahadev Mahtha except signal to stop rather abusing 2026:JHHC:14760 11 in the name of caste and assaulting him, is stated against four other accused persons. In his cross-examination also he admits that he has not undergone any medical treatment of the injury. He further admits that he informed about the occurrence to the Officer-in-charge of police station disclosing his injury and his report was written by police at the police station, on his dictation which was read over and explained to him and signed by him. He further admits that in his examination-in- chief, he has stated the same thing as was disclosed in his written report. He also admits that on the date of occurrence, he did not inform to village-Sarpanch, Choudhary or any other person about the occurrence. He also admits that his father has purchased some lands from Mahadev Mahtha but no dispute is pending in connection with that purchased land. He also admits that the place of occurrence is a lonely place and houses of other persons are situated at a distance of 100-150 steps and his Tola is situated about half kilometer and Ratanpur is at a distance of 200 meter. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has lodged a false case against the accused persons. P.W.-6, Sundara Devi is niece of the informant. As per contents of F.I.R., she is an eye-witness. According to her evidence, she along with her husband and uncle Rajendra Rajwar was going to her parental home to attend the marriage ceremony of her cousin brother. At about 06:00-6:30 P.M., when the vehicle reached near Kowadara then Mahadev Mahtha stopped the vehicle and said to his uncle to come down from the vehicle, when the vehicle stopped his uncle step down 2026:JHHC:14760 12 from the vehicle then Mahadev Mahtha told him “RAD HARIZAN MERE SAMNE GARI SE CHALTA HAI” and started abusing and assaulting by hands and other co-accused persons were also assaulting by Palash stick (Branch). She has denied suggestions of defence that on instruction of her uncle, she has given false evidence against accused persons. P.W.-7, Vijay Kumar Rajwar is also an eye-witness and husband of P.W.-6. As per F.I.R., he has stated that at the time of occurrence 4-5 persons stated to uncle of his wife and stopped the vehicle and in the name of caste Harizan started abusing and assaulting to his Chacha Sasur by Palash stick (Branch). Admittedly, this witness is stranger to the village of accused persons. In his cross-examination, he categorically admits that he can’t tell the accused persons belong to his matrimonial village or of any other place. He does not know the name of any accused persons and has not stated the name of accused persons before the police. He did not come out from the vehicle. He does not know about any previous enmity between his uncle and the accused persons. He also admits that Rajendra Rajwar was treated by village doctor. He has denied the suggestion of defence that at the incidence of his Chacha Sasur, he has given false evidence. P.W.-9, Jeetu Rajwar has produced a very novel fact regarding scriber of written report of the informant. According to this witness, the written report of informant was scribed by his co-villager, Sagar Mahtha. He is acquainted with the handwriting of Sagar Mahtha, hence 2026:JHHC:14760 13 proved the written report marked as Exhibit-4 (with objection). This witness is none else but real brother of the informant. He is not literate but can put his signature only. In his cross-examination, he also admits that he can’t tell whether the scriber Sagar Mahtha has also signed on the written report or not. Sagar Mahtha is alive and still resides in the village. He can’t tell the time when this written report was scribed. More surprisingly, he states that he has not signed over this written report rather it was signed by Pran Chand Rajwar, Amar Rajwar, Madhusudan Rajwar and Nitai Chandra Rajwar. P.W.-8, Deputy S.P., Anuranjan Kistopha is the I.O. of the case. He has proved the endorsement on the written report which was received at police station marked as Exhibit-2. The formal F.I.R. was drawn by Officer-in-charge, Sandeep Ranjan which is marked as Exhibit-3. The charge of investigation was given to this witness. He visited the place of occurrence which is a lonely place and Kachcha road named as Kowadara. There are Date Palm near the place of occurrence. The village Saharjori is situated at a distance of one kilometer and Ratanpur village about 300 yards towards East. He recorded re-statement of informant. He also recorded statement of witnesses Pran Chand Rajwar, Sundara Devi, Vijay Rajak, Amar Rajwar, Madhusudan Rajwar, Gurupado Rajwar and Nitai Chandra Rajwar etc. He did not find any mark of injury on the body of informant. After finding the occurrence to be true, he submitted charge- sheet against the accused persons. 2026:JHHC:14760 14 In his cross-examination, he admits that he did not make any investigation regarding the Maruti vehicle which was stopped in this case. Whose marriage was solemnized on the day of occurrence was also not investigated by him. Village-Chowkidar has also not informed about this occurrence at the police station. He also states that Pran Chand Rajwar was a hearsay witness before him. The statement of Sundari Devi (P.W.-6) was also recorded on 19.07.2003 at village Saharjori. Nitai Chandra Rajwar, Madhusudan Rajwar and Gurupado Rajwar all have been hearsay witnesses but they have not disclosed the name from whom they came to know about the occurrence. Pran Chand Rajwar has also not stated before him that clothes of informant were torn and he had sustained injures. He further admits that witnesses Nitai Chandra Rajwar, Guru Pado Rajwar and Madhusudan Rajwar have not disclosed before him in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that on the day of occurrence, they had gone for fishing in the pond. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his investigation is absolutely defective and he has submitted charge-sheet without conducting proper investigation and without sufficient evidence against the accused persons. 15. From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is crystal clear that the written report of the informant itself has not been proved by the scriber of the same namely, Sagar Mahtha who is still alive but never called for by the prosecution to prove the written report scribed on dictation of informant Rajendra Rajwar. 2026:JHHC:14760 15 16. On the other hand, the informant Rajendra Rajwar himself states that his statement was recorded by police at the police station itself which was read over and explained to him and find it to be true, he put his signature. The investigation officer of this case has also not been able to prove as to who was the scriber of written report of informant. Therefore, the very initiation of the criminal case becomes doubtful. The informant in his evidence during trial has completely diverted from the version in the written report. It is stated that when informant’s vehicle reached near Ratanpur Kowadara at about 06:30 P.M., all the five accused persons were sitting there and Mahadev Mahtha stopped him and ordered to come down from the vehicle, just he alighted from the vehicle Badrinath Mahtha abusing the informant, said that “SALA HARIZAN MERE SAMNE GARI SE GHUM RAHA HAI” and other three accused persons started assaulting him by Palash stick (branch). As against it, the informant (P.W.-5) in his testimony during trial has stated that Mahadev Mahtha stopped the vehicle by raising his hand other four accused persons pulled out from the vehicle and started abusing and assaulting him. He also admits that his statement was recorded at police station on his dictation. At this juncture, it is also to be mentioned that P.W.-6, Sundara Devi is also eye-witness who has stated totally different story as regards manner of occurrence. According to her, Mahadev Mahtha stopped the vehicle and her uncle himself got down from the vehicle then Mahadev Mahtha abused him in the name of Harizan caste. Thereafter, all the five accused persons started assaulting by Palash stick (branch). P.W.9 is also real brother of 2026:JHHC:14760 16 the informant who has proved the written report to be scribed by Sagar Mahtha. He simply says that in the written report only factum of assault was mentioned and he can’t tell the date and time of the written report. 17. In view of above material contradictions and discrepancies as regard the very genesis of occurrence, manner of assault, place of occurrence, the prosecution story appears to be suspicious and suffers from concealment of material facts. Under such circumstances, lodging of F.I.R., after four days of occurrence also cast doubt on the prosecution version and genuineness of the case. Considering the suspicious circumstances of the case as pointed out above, non- examination of any independent witness by the prosecution also cast doubt on the prosecution case. As discussed above, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have also given colorable testimony regarding their presence at the place of occurrence rather in their cross-examination admitted to be hearsay witnesses which is also fortified by the evidence of P.W.-8, Anuranjan Kistopha (I.O.). It appears that the learned Trial Court has not considered all the minute details particularly the contradictions and discrepancies appearing in the evidence of material witnesses, who happens to be close relatives/family members of the informant with proper care and caution and arrived at wrong conclusion. In my considered view, the genesis, manner and place of occurrence as depicted by the witnesses are self contradictory casting doubt in the prosecution story, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from serious error of 2026:JHHC:14760 17 law. 18. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, in Spl. SC/ST Case No. 25 of 2006 (arising out of G.R. Case No.600 of 2003) is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 19. Appellants are on bail, as such they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 20. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 14/05/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 15/05/2026