2026:JHHC:21371 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (S.J) No.108 of 2024 --------- [Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - VIII, Dhanbad in S.T. No.637 of 2022, arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.58 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No.2480 of 2021] --------- Sricharan Das (Informant), Aged about 51 years, S/O – Bishnu Pad Das, R/o – Village – Dolabar, P.O – Moko, P.S – Baliapur, District - Dhanbad. ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Vikash Das @ Ranjit Das, S/O – Bholanath Das, Aged about 27 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. Tara Dasi, W/O – Bholanath Das, Aged about 47 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Ekadasi Dasi, W/O- Anil Das, Aged about 52 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. Chhatan Das @ Srikant Das, S/O – Anil Das, Aged about 25 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 6. Paresh Das, S/O – Anil Das, Aged about 27 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 7. Anil Das, S/O – Late Shanti Das, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 8. Kalpana Dasi, W/O – Gour Das, Aged about 37 years, R/O – Dolabar, P.O + P.S – Baliapur, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondents --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For Appellant : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. V. K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P For the Respondents : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate --------- Order No.06/ Dated: 20 th July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents. - 1 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024 2026:JHHC:21371 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2024, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – VIII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.637 of 2022, arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.58 of 2021, corresponding to G.R No.2480 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the trial court has acquitted all the accused/ respondents for the offence under Sections 323/ 341/ 379/ 307/ 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R has been registered on the basis of written complaint of the informant Sricharan Das alleging that on 20.03.2021 at about 07:00 P.M son of the informant Gautam Das was returning from work as usual with his earning of the day. When he reached near his house, all the accused persons ambushed and intercepted him and badly assaulted him with sticks and stones inflicting serious injuries on his person. The accused Chhotan Das allegedly banged a big stone on his head. When the informant and his wife came to rescue their son, they were also assaulted and the accused Anil Das snatched ear rings from the wife of the informant. Thus, on the basis of the complaint petition, Baliapur P.S. Case No.58 of 2021 dated 21.03.2021 was registered under Sections 341/ 342/ 323/ 324/ 325/ 326/ 307/ 379/ 34 IPC against the accused persons and the police after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge- sheet under the above sections of the IPC. The charge has been framed under Section 323/ 341/ 379/ 307/ 324/34 - 2 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024 2026:JHHC:21371 against the accused persons. After conducting the trial, the trial court has acquitted all the accused persons, holding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge, beyond shadows of doubts. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant-informant has preferred the present acquittal appeal. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses. Their testimonies, in short, are as follows :- 6. P.W.-1, Mahadeo Gope, P.W.-2, Smanik Das, and P.W.-3 , Gondi Loya, have been declared hostile as all of them have stated that they do not know about the alleged incident. 7. P.W.-4, Nimai Das, is an eye witness to the incident and he has supported the prosecution story. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused namely, Anil Das has also filed a case against the informant party. At the time of incident, he was alone watching the incident. However, he and other villagers did not stop the fight. 8. P.W.-5, Shivcharan Das, is the informant of the case and he has supported the prosecution story. In his chief examination, he has deposed that at the time of occurrence he was in his house and on hearing hulla he came out and saw that the accused were assaulted his son with sticks and bricks. When he along with his wife came to rescue, they were also assaulted. He has proved the signature on the written complaint (Ext.-P1). - 3 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024 2026:JHHC:21371 In cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused persons have also field case against them. Prior to the incident, there was no case between them. 9. P.W.-6, Dr. Rituparna Dasgupta, is the doctor who had treated the injured. She found lacerated wound on the person of the injured. No internal injury was found either in the X-ray or CT scan report. The injuries were found to be simple in nature and duration of injury was within two hours. 10. P.W.-7, Erik Toppo, is the investigating officer of the case. He has stated that during investigation he had visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. In cross-examination, he has stated that the incident was dated 20.03.2021 while it was reported on 21.03.2021. he has not taken the statement of the injured persons. He has admitted that one of the accused namely, Anil Das also filed a case against the informant party and in both the cases, he was the investigating officer. 11. P.W.-8, Padma Das, is the wife of the informant and she has supported the prosecution story. She was also an injured witness. In cross-examination, she has stated that the accused has also filed a case against her son being Baliapur P.S Case No.59 of 2021. She has stated that she does not remember the day and date of the incident. She has stated that she cannot say who were present at the place of - 4 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024 2026:JHHC:21371 occurrence. She has admitted that the accused are of the same village and she knows them. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that at least offence under Section 323 IPC is made out as there is injury and the injury has been proved and the injured witnesses have clearly stated that they have been assaulted by the accused persons. On the above basis, the judgment of acquittal has been assailed. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 8 has supported the judgment of acquittal and it has been submitted that the learned trial court after evaluating the evidence has found that the witnesses are not reliable and considering the same, the judgment of acquittal has been passed. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) the prosecution story, as disclosed in the F.I.R. and as has been supported by the witnesses in the court, do not get corroboration from the medical evidence. (b) there is contradiction in the statement of the witnesses and all the witnesses are the interested witnesses. (c) there is a family dispute between the parties. 15. It is settled principle of law that during evaluation of evidence, the trial court gets advantage, as the trial court - 5 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024 2026:JHHC:21371 has an opportunity to see the demur of the witnesses. In the present case, the trial court has taken into account the entire factual matrix of the case and has found that the prosecution evidences are not reliable. 16. Thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with judgment of acquittal based on the above reason. Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2024, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – VIII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.637 of 2022, arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.58 of 2021, corresponding to G.R No.2480 of 202, requires no interference. 17. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed. 18. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 20th July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 23.07.2026 - 6 - Acq. Appeal (SJ)No.108 of 2024