2026:JHHC:18654 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 286 of 2019 ----- [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 21.02.2019 passed in SC/ST Case No.03 of 2013 arising out of Meral P.S. Case No. 63 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 920 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa] 1.Md. Amzad Sheikh, aged about 60 years, son of Late Mohan Sheikh 2.Md. Jainul Sheikh, aged about 40 years, son of Late Chohan Sheikh All resident of village- Parsahi, P.O. & P.S. Meral, District- Garhwa --- --- Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Mahesh Ram S/o Late Musan Ram, Resident of Parsahi P.O. & P.S. Meral District- Garhwa --- --- Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, A.P.P. For the Victim : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl.P.P. representing the State. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has submitted that initially three appellants had preferred the present appeal, out of which appellant no. 3 Md. Kyam has died during pendency of the appeal and his case stands abated vide order dated 18.06.2019. Now the case is against the aforesaid two appellants only. 3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 21.02.2019 passed in SC/ST No.03 of 2013 arising out of Meral P.S. Case No. 63 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 920 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa, whereby the appellants have 2026:JHHC:18654 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323,504 of the I.P.C and under Section 3(v) & (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 1 month under Section 323 IPC; S.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 1 month under Section 504 IPC and S.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 1 month under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 4. The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging of complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa being Complaint Case No. 726 of 2009. The complainant Mahesh Ram S/o late Musan Ram, R/o Parsahi, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa, stated therein that he is very poor person and harijan (schedule caste) hence Government had settled land vide settlement case no.120/90-91, khata no. 249, plot no.2803/D, area 0.47 decimal and 0.48 decimal in two plots. The accused persons namely Md. Amzad Sheikh, Md. Jainul Sheikh, Md. Kyam Sheikh, Md. Islam Sheikh of village Parsahi, P.O. Okhargara, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa have claimed that these land of the complainant as their own. They tried to demolish the Aari (ridges) of the land of the complainant and when he asked them not to do so, the accused persons abused him in filthy language by taking his caste’s name and also asked as to how he dared to raise voice against them. The accused persons threatened to finish him. The accused said that as the complainant is of lower caste, hence he should do begari to the accused persons but instead, the complainant is daring to raise their eye against the accused persons. They also said that the accused persons are more in number in that area, hence any time the complainant side will be smashed. On 28.06.2009 the accused persons had broken the ridges of the crop field of the complainant and were trying to shift it at some other distance, then the complainant objected 2026:JHHC:18654 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 to their act, upon which the accused persons abused him in very filthy language by taking his caste’s name and also slapped him. They looted the watch of the complainant and also threatened that if he goes anywhere to institute a case, then he will not be spared and he will be killed and thrown away. Due to this fear, he did not come out of the house and stealthily approached the court and filed this case. 5. After filing of the complaint petition, the complaint was forwarded to the Meral P.S. u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of complaint petition, the police instituted a case as Meral P.S. Case No. 63/2011 dated 12.07.2011, u/s 323, 379, 504 of the I.P.C., 3 (IV) (V) (X)(XV) of SC & ST Act against accused persons of this case. On completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge sheet u/ss. 323, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and u/s 3 (iv) (v) (x)(xv) of the SC & ST Act, against accused of this case. 6. On the basis of the charge sheet, the then learned Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa took cognizance of the offence under Section 323, 379, 504 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC & ST Act against the accused persons. 7. Thereafter, charges were framed on 07.06.2013 under Section 323, 504, 379 of the IPC and Section 3(v) & (x) of the SC/ST(POA) Act against the accused persons. The said charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether five prosecution witnesses have been examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1(Somaru Ram) – He is the brother of the complainant. He has supported the prosecution story and has reiterated the statement made in the F.I.R and the statement made by the informant. II. P.W.2(Khakhnu Ram) – He is also brother of the complainant and has supported the prosecution story. III. P.W.3(Mahesh Ram) – He is the complainant of the case. 2026:JHHC:18654 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 He has supported the prosecution case. In his deposition before the court, he has stated that the occurrence is of five and half years back. He had received 95 decimal lands from the Government by way of settlement. Amzad Sheikh, Kyam Sheikh, Islam Sheikh and Jainul Sheikh had broken the ridge (med) of his crop field and they abused him in filthy language by taking his caste’s name. The accused persons had twice slapped him. He had filed case in the court. Police had taken his statement for abusing him in dirty language by taking his caste’s name thereby lowering down the prestige of the complainant. He has identified the accused present in the court and claims to identify those who are on representation. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the defence. However, court has put two questions to him, in reply to which he stated that he alone was repairing the ridges (med) in the crop field. But the accused persons came and removed the med/ridges. On this issue, quarrel took place between both the sides. The accused persons forcefully claim on the land. He belonged to Ravidas caste (Chamar). IV. P.W.4(Shiv Kumar Singh) – He is the investigating Officer of the case. He took over the charge of investigation from earlier investigating officer Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh. In his cross examination he has stated that he neither took statement of any persons related to the incident nor inspected the place of occurrence. V. P.W.5(Awadhesh Kumar Singh)- He was the first investigating officer of the case. He inspected the place of occurrence and took statement of the witnesses. Thereafter he handed over the charge of investigation to Shiv Kumar Singh. During investigation he found out that there is land dispute between both the parties. In his cross examination he 2026:JHHC:18654 5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 has stated that there is no independent witness to the occurrence. 9. The defence has also adduced documentary evidence as under: I. Exhibit -A – Certified copy of Settlement Case No. 45 of 2012- 13 II. Exhibit-B- certified copy of the Aadesh falak of C-195/2013 III. Exhibit-C –Certified copy of the complaint petition of C- 195/2013 10. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has referred to the above depositions and materials on record and made the following submissions: I. The Police after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet u/ss. 323, 379, 504 of the I.P.C. and u/s 3 (iv) (v) (x)(xv) of the SC & ST Act, however the Court has taken cognizance of the matter under Section 323, 379, 504 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC & ST Act. II. Even the alleged abusement is not in within the public view and further there is no dispossession of land rather it is merely a boundary dispute. III. There is sole witness i.e., P.W.3 of the incident but he is not reliable as there is a dispute between the parties and false implication cannot be ruled out. IV. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the hearsay and interested witness. V. Thus, no offence under SC/ST act is made out and since there is no corroboration of the allegation and the testimony of P.W.3 is also not reliable as there is no corroborative material available on record and further the I.O has also not supported the case. VI. There is no evidence on record suggesting that the victim is member of Schedule Caste community, save and except his 2026:JHHC:18654 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 statement, which is contrary to the law. 12. Learned counsel for the State and the Victim have supported the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and has submitted that there is abusement of member of Scheduled Caste community and further he has been assaulted and there was an attempt to grab his land. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that: I. Although the allegation is there but except P.W.3, there is no eye witness. II. The Police, after investigation found that it is a civil dispute. The exhibits suggest that there was dispute between the parties and there is some order of the Revenue Authority. III. Both the parties share the common boundary. The ingredients under Section 3(v) of the SC/ST Act are missing as there is no dispossession from the land as is evident from the question put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. IV. There is no corroborative documentary evidence except the statement that the alleged victim is member of Scheduled Caste Community. V. Accept the bald statement of the victim P.W.3, there is no other corroborative material available on record. Testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not trustworthy. 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there are no enough materials for conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 21.02.2019 passed in SC/ST No.03 of 2013 arising out of Meral P.S. Case No. 63 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 920 of 2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa is quashed and set aside. 2026:JHHC:18654 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No 286 of 2019 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 16. Since, the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from liability of their bail bond. 17. Let the Trial Court Record be sent to the concerned trial court below. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Dated 25th June, 2026 Uploaded ___/____/2026