2026:JHHC:2365-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No.28 of 2024 Surendra Kumar, son of Late Gopal Nair, B-7/2, CCL Colony, Barkakana, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. ----- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Suresh Kumar Nair @ Suresh Nair, son of Late Gopal Nair, resident of Giridih Bypass Road, Koderma, P.O., P.S. and District Koderma. ----- Respondent ------ CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate ------- 06/28.01.2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No.III, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in connection with S.T. Case No. 45 of 2020 arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020 by which the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 3. The prosecution case reveals that the respondent no.2 was upset with the appellant as his mother had transferred the share of the other two brothers of the appellant to him and for that reason in the night of 07.07.2020 the respondent no.2 had assaulted his mother causing injuries and when the informant on such information reached his home at Koderma, he found his mother already dead. Based on the aforesaid allegations Koderma P.S. Case No. 103 of 2020 was instituted against the respondent no.2 under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the respondent no.2 and after cognizance was 2 taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 45 of 2020. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in course of trial, has examined seven witnesses including the appellant who has been examined as P.W.1. 5. The statement of the respondent no.2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his culpability in the commission of murder of his mother. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned trial court vide order dated 09.10.2023 had acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charges leveled against him which has prompted the appellant to prefer the present acquittal appeal. 6. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence on record would go to show that the respondent no.2 was aggrieved with his mother for not giving him his share of property and consequent to the same the assault had been committed by him upon his mother which ultimately resulted in her death. It has been submitted that the respondent no.2 was residing near the house where his mother resided and despite the said fact he had not taken his mother for treatment in a timely manner which furthermore enhances the culpability of the respondent no.2 in committing such murder. In fact from the evidence of P.W.2 who happens to be the sister of the present appellant and respondent no.2 it appears that when she had wanted to go inside the house, the same was resisted by the respondent no.2. Mr. Manoj Kumar No.3 has also submitted that though there are no eyewitnesses to the incident but a strong circumstance emerges from the evidence of the witnesses about the involvement of the respondent no.2 in 3 committing the murder of his mother and this fact has been corroborated by the postmortem report. 7. Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the learned trial court, based on a dearth of evidence so far as the involvement of the respondent no.2 is concerned, has rightly acquitted the respondent no.2 from the charges leveled against him and no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2023. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 9. It appears that the appellant, the respondent no.2 as well as DW 1 are brothers and it also appears to be an admitted fact that the properties belonging to the deceased mother of these persons have not been partitioned and this was probably the reason for implicating the respondent no.2 of committing the murder of his mother. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the only circumstantial evidence which has been construed by the appellant to show the involvement of the respondent no.2 is of the evidence of P.W.2 with respect to the resistance she had faced from the respondent no.2 while trying to enter the house of her deceased mother and the fact that the respondent no.2 had not taken his mother for treatment. 10. It appears that the respondent no.2 resides in a nearby place to the place of occurrence and so far as the appellant is concerned, he is working as an Assistant Engineer in Central Coalfields Limited and is posted at Barkakana which is at a distant place from the place where the incident had actually occurred. The learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that though a suspicion has been created by the aforesaid acts of the respondent no.2, but there is no trustworthy evidence to put muscle to such suspicion. The other brother of the appellant and the respondent no.2 has been examined as D.W. 1 in which he has stated that his mother had fallen down from the bed sustaining injuries and 4 ultimate death. D.W.1 has also stated about the previous history of falling down of his mother who was also suffering from hypertension and her leg was also fractured during one of such incidents. The Danda or chair by which the respondent no.2 is said to have committed assault, as per the appellant, have not been seized by the police and we cannot also lose sight of the fact that there was a property dispute between the brothers as the same was not partitioned. The deceased was aged 80 years and the postmortem report does not indicate about the homicidal nature of the injuries and in fact it appears that after the deceased had suffered injuries and severe bleeding which also proved one of the reasons for the death of the deceased. 11. The learned trial court has appropriately considered the evidence on record as well as the motive of false implication of the respondent no.2 and there being weak circumstantial evidence against the respondent no.2 had rightly acquitted him from the charges leveled against him. 12. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this acquittal appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 28.01.2026 Shamim/- Uploaded on: 30/01/2026