Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:20922-DB ) THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 80 of 2019 Chandra Oraon, son of Dina Oraon, resident of Village Chandali, P.O. Asni, P.S & District Gumla ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Sulamani Devi @ Mantula, wife of Shankar Munda, resident of Village Barkadih, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Advocate For the State : APP For the Respondent-2 : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate --- Order No. 08 Dated 15th July, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 244 of 2017 arising out of Gumla (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against her. 3. A First Information Report was instituted to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was involved in trafficking of the wife of the informant and had sold her in Delhi. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Gumla (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016 was instituted. 4. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 244 of 2017. 5. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 363, 365,367,368 and 370 I.P.C. and Section 16 of the Bonded Labour Prohibition Act which was read over and explained to her to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Page|1 6. It appears that despite repeated opportunities give by the learned trial court, the prosecution had failed to produce a solitary witness and which resulted in acquittal of the respondent No. 2 by the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2019. 7. We have perused the entire certified copy of the order-sheet as produced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 from which it clearly appears that efforts were made by the learned trial court to get the witnesses examined, but in absence of any of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court did not have any option, but to acquit the respondent No. 2 from the charge levelled against her. 8. We do not find any reasons to differ with the findings recorded in the impugned judgment dated 04.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 244 of 2017 arising out of Gumla (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) MK 15.07.2026 Page|2