Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20068 (JHR)

KAILASH YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Acq. App./90/2019 · 2026-07-06

Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:19855-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 90 of 2019 --------- Kailash Mahto, aged about 80 years, son of Late Ritu Mahto, resident of village- Chongakhar, P.O.- Birni, P.S.- Birni, District- Giridih ... … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Kasim, son of Dhurbali Mian, resident of village- Karutand, P.O.- Birni, P.S.- Birni, District- Birni ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Appellant :Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate For the State :Mrs. Amirta Kumari, A.P.P. --------- 10/06.07.2026 Heard Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Birni P.S. Case No. 71 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.05.2014, the informant had received information that a dead body was lying in a pond situated near Khairidih, and on receiving such information, when he had gone to the place of occurrence, he had found the dead body lying in a decomposed state. The dead body could not be identified. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Birni P.S. Case No. 71 of 2014 was instituted, and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Subsequently, a supplementary charge- sheet was also submitted. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was 2026:JHHC:19855-DB 2 registered as Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2015, and the charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C., which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of his case. Since the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the murder could not be established by virtue of the ocular evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial court, vide judgment dated 02.01.2019, had acquitted opposite party No. 2 of the charges levelled against him. It appears from the averments made in the memo of appeal that, out of 22 charge-sheet witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, and it is the grievance of the appellant that no opportunity was given by the learned trial court to examine the other witnesses, which has led to a failure of justice and, consequently, to the acquittal of respondent No. 2 from the charges levelled against him Mrs. Amrita Kumari, learned A.P.P., on going through the trial court records, submitted that several opportunities were given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses, and efforts were also taken by the learned trial court to get the charge-sheet witnesses examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no effort on the part of the learned trial court to examine the charge-sheet witnesses. It, therefore, appears that sincere efforts were indeed made by the learned trial court to examine the witnesses, but only five witnesses could ultimately be examined. Even the Doctor and the Investigating Officer 2026:JHHC:19855-DB 3 were not examined by the prosecution. It also appears that the dead body was identified as that of Ganesh Yadav by his brother, Narayan Yadav, but the prosecution had failed to examine even Narayan Yadav. None of the witnesses stated anything regarding the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the murder of Ganesh Yadav. Based on the absence of any cogent material against the appellant indicating his culpability in committing the murder of Ganesh Yadav, and since appropriate steps were taken by the learned trial court to examine the witnesses, none of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the memo of appeal are tenable, and consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 06.07.2026 Umesh-Abhishek/-