2026:JHHC:21622 1 Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 28 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (C). No. 28 of 2024 Gupteshwar Nath, aged about 84 years, Son of Late Jiru Prasad @ Jiru Ram, resident of H. No. 31, Kaveri Road, Diaguttu, Jawahar Road, P.O. Mango, P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Nirmal Upadhayay, son of Late Hari Bhajan Upadhyay, resident of H. No. 540, Near Shiv Temple, Diaguttu, Mango, P.O. Mango, P.S. Azadnagar, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Souma Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. 06/22.07.2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.06.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has acquitted the respondent no. 2 from the charges levelled against him and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1(Complaint) Case No. 1653 of 2015 whereby the respondent no. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 403 of the IPC. 3. The criminal case has been put into motion by lodging of the complaint by the complainant. The brief fact of the case is that the accused – respondent no. 2 induced the complainant to start a business and told the complainant that if he would invest money then he would get 50% profit from the said business. Thereafter the complainant invested Rs. 1,65,000/- for the said business and requested the accused to start the business. However, the accused always avoided. The complainant being vexed, demanded money from the accused to 2026:JHHC:21622 2 Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 28 of 2024 which the accused threatened him to commit his murder. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Officer-in-charge of the Mango Police Station but no action was taken by the Police. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned CJM, Jamshedpur. 4. After due inquiry the learned court of SDJM, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence against the accused. 5. After culmination of the trial, the accused- respondent no. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 403 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and a default sentence of 1 month R.I. vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.06.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1653 of 2025 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction, the accused- respondent no. 2 preferred a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2023 wherein the learned appellate court after appreciating the evidences on record has acquitted the respondent no. 2 from the charge levelled against him and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 1653 of 2025. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal in the said criminal appeal, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant. 8. It appears from perusal of the record that the only evidence available is Exhibit-1 i.e., the Agreement. On the basis of agreement, finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Court that the money has been invested, while, the same finding has been reversed by the appellate court holding that there is not a single chit of paper or money receipt to establish that the said monetary transaction has happened. Thus, the agreement in question has been construed by the two Courts in different manner. 9. The criminal law and civil law have different jurisprudence. In a criminal law things have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 2026:JHHC:21622 3 Acquittal Appeal (C) No. 28 of 2024 The transaction of money has to be proved independently and in a reasonable manner. 10. In the present case, transaction of money has been sought to be presumed, which is not enough for conviction under the criminal law. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court. 12. Accordingly, the instant acquittal appeal stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 22.07.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026