2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 357 of 2007 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2005 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.161 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.804 of 2004] --------- Raj Karan Mahto @ Raj Karan Mehta, Son of Balram Mahto, Resident of Village-Bhitiahi, P.S.-Patan, District-Palamau (Jharkhand) … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 212 of 2007 --------- Babuia Singh @ Babu Singh @ Chandrika Singh, Son of Gopal Singh, Both residents of village-Tabar, Police Station-Sadar Daltonganj, District- Palamau … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 21.04. 2026 Pronounced On 09 /06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respective parties and learned A.P.Ps. 2. Both the above appeals are arising out of common judgement, hence heard together and are being disposed of by common judgment. 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 2 3. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that Cr. Appeal No.212 of 2007 was filed by two accused persons, out of them, appellant No.1, Kamta Singh has died and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 14.07.2025. Cr. Appeal No.212 of 2007 is now heard on behalf of the sole surviving appellant, namely, Babuia Singh @ Chandrika Singh @ Babu Singh. 4. Instant criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2005 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.161 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.804 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant, Raj Karan Mahto has been held guilty for the offences under sections 395 and 412 of IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, the appellant, Kamata Singh has been held guilty for the offence under section 395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 5. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that on 24-25. 06.2004 at about 12:15 am, when the informant was sleeping at his door, one person woke him and four other persons armed with various weapons 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 3 like guns and revolver were also present there and he was taken away to some distance where more two miscreants were present. The miscreants asked the informant to give his licensee gun then he replied that he has no gun. Thereafter all the miscreants brought him to his house and tied all the family members, kept them in courtyard and two of them were watching them and rest four miscreants started plundering in the house. It is further alleged that the miscreants have taken away jewellery of gold and silver worth Rs.10,000/- like Payal, Pajeb, ear-ring etc. The informant has claimed to identify the accused persons who were seen in the lantern light, if he would get occasion to see them again. 6. On the basis of above information, Sadar P.S. Case No.161 of 2004 was registered for the offence under section 395 of IPC against unknown miscreants. In course of investigation, on the basis of secret information, some of the miscreants were apprehended and brought to police station, who confessed their guilt and the informant was also noticed to identify them. It is further alleged that in T.I. Parade, the present appellants were identified by the witnesses and one gullak containing some coins stolen at the time of occurrence was also identified, which was recovered from the possession of Raj Karan Mahato. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against above named appellants for the offence under sections 395 and 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 4 412 of IPC continuing the investigation against other miscreants. The appellants have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Sudeshwar Prajapati P.W.2-Rakesh Kumar @ Babloo P.W.3-Jairam Prajapati P.W.4-Kundan Kumar Prajapati (Informant) P.W.5-Golden Prajapati P.W.6-Chintamani Devi P.W.7-Raj Kumar Mishra P.W.8-Pasupati Nath Mishra P.W.9-Dasrath Bhuian P.W.10- Kumar Sarju Anand (IO) 8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, two documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1.-Signature of Jai Ram Prajapati on fardbayan Ext.1/A-Signature of Kundan Kumar on fardbayan Ext.2- T.I.P Chart Ext.2/1-Preparation of T.I.P. Chart by Pasupatinath Mishra Ext.3-Fardbayan Ext.4-Seizure list 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 5 9. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defense. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion. 10. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as stated above, which has been assailed in these appeals. Submission on behalf of appellants:- 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The informant has claimed to identify the accused persons, who were seen in the lantern light but other witnesses of identification has stated that accused persons were seen in the electricity light. Learned counsel submits that other family members of the informant have categorically admitted that there is no electricity connection in the village. Therefore, the source of identification of the appellants is a very weak and shaky nature of evidence. Moreover, it is admitted by T.I. Parade witnesses that two accused persons were arrested on the next day of occurrence and the police called upon them at police station where the accused persons were identified and the names were also disclosed by the police officers. Inspite of that, T.I. Parade was conducted on 23.11.2004 after four months without any explanation about such inordinate delay in holding T.I. Parade. In between, the aforesaid 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 6 period, accused persons were brought to court several times and remanded. Therefore, the claim of T.I.P. witnesses that they have identified the accused persons, is absolutely unbelievable and cannot be basis for conviction. It is further argued that as per FIR, there is no mention about theft of any gullak and any how a gullak was managed and T.I. Parade was conducted by presenting single gullak. However, T.I. P. Officer, BDO, Chainpur states that five gullaks of similar types were put together at the time of identification. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants is based upon scanty and shaky evidence adduced by the prosecution for such a serious offence. The learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the aforesaid vital aspects of the case while recording the findings of the guilt of the appellants. The appellants have no criminal antecedents either prior to the occurrence or after initiation and conclusion of present proceeding. It is quite obvious that police has arrested them on the basis of suspicion and falsely involved the appellants without any evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing these appeals. Submission on behalf of State:- 12. Learned A.P.Ps. have defending the impugned judgment on merits have contended that the eye-witnesses have proved the involvement of the present appellants in the alleged dacoity. The appellants have also been 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 7 identified during T.I. Parade and one gullak was recovered from the possession of the appellant, Raj Karan Mahto. All the appellants have confessed their involvement in the alleged offence. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference in these appeals, which devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 15. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. P.W.1- Sudeshwar Prajapati is a hearsay witness, who came to know on the next day that a robbery has been committed in the house of Kundan Prajapati (P.W.4). P.W.2-Rakesh Kumar @ Babloo is the brother of the informant and on the date of occurrence, he was sleeping in the night at 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 8 varanda of his house. He has claimed to have seen 4-5 miscreants from the grill. He further states that all the miscreants entered into his house and all family members were put together at a place and other miscreants started committing robbery in his house. Thereafter, they fled away taking ornaments and cash. This witness has not claimed to identify any miscreants. P.W.3- Jairam Prajapati is the father of the informant and he was also sleeping along with his family members in the night and his son, Kundan Prajapati was sleeping outside in front of the door, who knocked the door, then this witness opened the door. Thereafter, 4-5 miscreants having various weapons in their hands like pistols and guns entered into his house. The miscreants were belonging to MCC party. Some accused persons put all the family members together in the courtyard where lantern was lightening and other miscreants were committing robbery by breaking the attachee and took away ornaments of gold and silver and cash Rs.4,500/-. He had occasion to see the miscreants and claimed to identify them. Thereafter, T.I. Parade was conducted twice, he went to jail and identified the accused, Raj Karan Mahto and Kamta Singh (since deceased). He also admits that at the time of dacoity, the miscreants were in uniform and wearing gamcha on their head but face was not totally hidden. He also states that the dacoity 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 9 continued about two hours and he identified the accused, Babuia Singh @ Babu Singh. In his cross-examination, he admits that around his house there are 6-7 houses of neighbours. He also admits that in his house, there is no electricity connection. He also admits that villagers were also sleeping outside of their house in summer season. He further states that he has identified the face of the miscreants and the names of the miscreants were disclosed by the police. He further admits that on 26.06.2004, the miscreants were arrested by the police then he came to know their name by the police. He along with his family members was also called upon by the police officer after three days of the occurrence where all the accused persons were present. He also admits that on information by the police, he came to know about arrested persons, who have committed dacoity in his house. He also admits that T.I. Parade was conducted after 2-3 months when he saw the accused persons at the police station. He further admits that T.I. Parade was conducted on 23.11.2004 wherein he has stated before the officer that he has identified the accused persons in the light of electric bulb, which was deem. He further reiterated that when the accused persons were arrested after 3-4 days of occurrence, he was called upon at police station and identified Raj Karan Mahato and Kamat Singh (since deceased). His son, Kundan Prajapati has also identified the accused persons at police 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 10 station. He admits that he came to know the name of accused persons on disclosure of the accused persons themselves. At that time, 5-6 accused persons were arrested by the police. Thereafter, T.I. Parade was conducted in jail. P.W.4-Kundan Kumar Prajapati is the informant and he has supported the contents of his fardbayan and proved his signature over the fardbayan as Ext.1/A. He states that he has identified the accused persons, Raj Karan Mahto and Kamata Singh (since deceased) in jail. In his cross-examination, he admits that except this witness and his father, none of the other family members have claimed to identify the miscreants. This witness has denied that prior to T.I.P, he along with his father called upon at police station where accused persons were identified by him. P.W.5-Golden Prajapati is the brother of P.W.2 and he was also sleeping in the courtyard and his elder brother, Kundan Prajapati (informant) knocked the door then several miscreants having guns and pistols appear to be party member (MCC) entered into the house, they have robbed the golden and silver ornaments. This witness has not claimed to identify any of the accused persons. P.W.6- Chintamani is mother of the informant and she has also stated in the same line that her son, Kundan Prajapati has stated that 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 11 miscreants knocked the door and several miscreants belonging to Extremist Groups armed with pistol and revolver entered into her house and committed robbery of golden and silver ornaments. All the family members were put in the courtyard and some accused persons were watching them. She has not identified any of the miscreants rather she stated that T.I. Parade of recovered articles, which were stolen in the said occurrence, was conducted by BDO, Sahab and she has identified one gullak. She also admits that only one gullak was presented at the time of identification. She further admits that in her village, there is no electricity connection and in her house only lantern was burning at the time of occurrence. P.W.7- Raj Kumar Mishra is the Judicial Magistrate and is a formal witness, who has proved the T.I. Parade chart marked Ext.2. This witness admits that in the T.I.P. Chart, P.W.3 claimed that he had identified the accused persons in the electricity light. P.W.8-Pasupati Nath Mishra is the officer, who has conducted the T.I. Parade of the seized materials like gullak (Ankmundwa) and has proved T.I. Parade as Ext.2/1. This witness admits that there was no special mark on the seized gullak rather it was a common gullak available in the open market. P.W.9- Dasrath Bhuian has been tendered and stated nothing about the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 12 P.W.10- A.S.I. Kumar Sarju Anand is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to him, after assuming the charge of investigation, he got secret information about the involvement of some miscreants in this case and searched in the house of A1 and A2 namely, Ram Karan Mahato and Kamta Singh (since deceased), who were arrested and confessed their guilt. On the basis of confessional statement of the above accused person, a gullak was seized from the house of the A1, Ram Karan Mahto. The seizure list was prepared and marked as Ext.4 and the seized material was put on T.I. Parade which was identified by P.W.3. In course of investigation, he also conducted T.I. Parade of the accused persons, Raj Karan Mahto, Kamta Singh and Babuia Singh @ Babu Singh and finding sufficient evidence against them, has submitted charge-sheet against them. 16. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned trial court has relied upon the evidence of T.I. Parade of accused persons as well as the seized gullak. It appears from the evidence of witnesses of facts that just after two days of occurrence i.e. on 26.06.2004, both accused persons, namely, Ram Karan Mahto and Kamta Singh (since deceased) were apprehended on suspicion and also confessed their guilt before the Investigating Officer. The witnesses who have participated in the T.I. Parade were called upon at the police station, where accused persons were shown and their names were also 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 13 disclosed. Not only this, T.I. Parade was conducted in the month of November after 4-5 months of the arrest of the accused persons, who were regularly remanded in this case by the production before the concerned court of Magistrate. The source of identification in the lantern light or in electricity light in the dead night about 12:15 am to 12:30 am, while admittedly the accused persons were muffling their face by gamcha, hence, it is quite impossible and unnatural to exactly identify the accused persons after such inordinate delay. Therefore, the identity of the appellants smells doubtful activity in between police and the witnesses. It also appears that the gullak was never claimed to be stolen at the time of occurrence and single gullak was produced for T.I. Parade as per witnesses, who have identified the same. On the other hand, T.I. Officer states that five similar gullaks were produced at the time of occurrence. Therefore, T.I. Parade of seized material is also not helpful for the prosecution. It appears that the learned trial court has ignored the above vital and glaring aspects of the case while recording findings about the guilt of the appellants. Neither the claim of witnesses to identify the appellants during the time of occurrence nor their test identification conducted after four months of their arrest holds any sanctity under law. Except the above evidence, there is no connecting evidence showing the involvement of the appellants in the alleged offence. The appellants have no any criminal antecedent. 2026:JHHC:16552 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.357 & 212 of 2007 14 17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find and hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court suffers from serious error of law and none consideration of material evidence vitiating the overall evidence of the witnesses. 18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2007 and order of sentence dated 03.02.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2005 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.161 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No.804 of 2004 is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. These appeals are allowed. 19. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from liability of their 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.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date 09 / 06/2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 10/06 /2026