2026:JHHC:25828 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 504 of 2015 -------- 1. Mithu Ansari @ Mithu Mian @ Md. Iftekar Ansari 2. Sham @ Tanbir Ansari @ Tanwer Ansari 3. Raju Ansari 4. Pappu Ansari All are sons of Majid Ansari, resident of Village-Urma, Kalubathan, P.O.-Urma, P.S.-Nirsa, District-Dhanbad ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party With Cr. Revision No. 644 of 2015 -------- Azad Ansari, S/o Mubarak Mian, resident of Village-Urma P.S.- Kalubathan Op., P.S.-Nirsa, District-Dhanbad, State-Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- P R E S E N T CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Dr. Vandana Singh, Advocate Ms. Aliza, Advocate [in Cr. Revision No. 504 of 2015] Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate [in Cr. Revision No. 644 of 2015] For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. [in Cr. Revision No. 504 of 2015] : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. [in Cr. Revision No. 644 of 2015] -------- C.A.V. on 20.07.2026 Pronounced on 27/08/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. Instant criminal revisions are directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2013 & Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2013 has been dismissed which was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 1699 of 2005, arising out of Nirsa 2026:JHHC:25828 2 (Kalubathan) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2005, whereby the petitioners have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 143/149, 147/149, 353/149, 341/149, 342/149, 504/149, 505/149 & 506/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 143 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 504 of the I.P.C.; S.I. for three years for the offence under Section 505 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to these revisions as per written report of the informant, Swapan Kumar Mahta, S.I., In-charge of Kalubathan O.P., is that on 28.05.2005 at about 7:00 A.M, he received confidential information that Mithu Ansari along with his associates were smuggling coal on boats near Panchet Dam in Urma village. Upon receiving and verifying the said information, the informant along with A.S.I. Arun Prasad and police personnel Shivjee Singh, Yogeshwar Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Bipin Kumar Yadav and Suresh Oraon, as well as private driver Shankar Thakur, proceeded to Panchet Dam in a police jeep. There, they saw 7–8 boats near the riverside. Upon seeing the police party, the persons on the boats 2026:JHHC:25828 3 escaped through water on boat. It is further the case of the prosecution that, while returning at about 8:15 hours, when the informant and the raiding party had reached between Kharadih and Urma, they saw Mithu Ansari along with Sham @ Tanwar Ansari, Pappu Ansari, Raju Ansari and Azad Ansari, accompanied by several hundred violent persons, raising slogans against the informant. The accused persons, armed with deadly weapons, had formed an unlawful assembly and started abusing the informant and the members of the raiding party. Mithu Ansari instigated the mob, while the informant tried to pacify them but the accused persons along with the violent mob, took the informant and the police raiding party into their custody and forcibly took them in front of a mosque, where they allegedly started planning to kill the police personnel. It is further alleged that police personnel Yogeshwar Prasad Yadav was forcibly taken away by accused Mithu Ansari and the other accused persons and was concealed at some secret place. The wristwatch of police personnel Shivjee Singh was also taken away by Sham @ Tanwar Ansari. After about five hours, a large number of police personnel from nearby police stations and the police headquarters arrived at the spot along with the local M.L.A., Aparna Sen Gupta. Due to their efforts, the informant and the members of the police party were freed from the custody of the accused persons. On the basis of above written report, Nirsa (Kalubathan) P.S. Case No. 117 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 379, 323, 332, 353, 504, 505, 506 & 365 2026:JHHC:25828 4 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 143/149, 147/149, 353/149, 341/149, 342/149, 504/149, 505/149 & 506/149 of the I.P.C. On appeal preferred by the accused persons, the learned Appellate Court has acquitted them from the charges under Sections 143 & 504 of the I.P.C. However, the learned Appellate Court upheld their conviction under Sections 147, 341, 342, 353, 505 & 506 of the I.P.C. Against the judgment of Appellate Court these revisions are filed. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners: - 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that P.W.-1, the informant has failed to identify the petitioners and as noticed by the learned Trial Court itself, the witness identified a wrong person, while P.Ws.-3, 4, 5 and 7 being independent witnesses, turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel has 2026:JHHC:25828 5 further submitted that no medical evidence or injury report has been brought on record in respect of the alleged injured constable to substantiate the allegation of assault. The Investigating Officer was also not examined, thereby depriving the defence of an opportunity to bring on record material contradictions regarding the place of occurrence and other aspects of the prosecution case, causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. Learned counsel has also contended that the prosecution case rests substantially upon the testimony of interested police witnesses, namely P.Ws.-1 and 6. There is no independent witness corroborating the alleged occurrence. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgments, being contrary to the evidence, legally unsustainable and perverse. Hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside, allowing this revision. Submissions on behalf of the State: - 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State have submitted that the prosecution has duly proved its case through the evidence of P.Ws.-1 and 6, whose testimony cannot be discarded merely for being departmental witnesses. It is further submitted that absence of medical evidence and non-examination of the Investigating Officer are not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the ocular testimony of witness sufficiently establishes the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:25828 6 The contradictions pointed out by the petitioners are minor and do not go to the root of the case. Hence, the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the petitioners, and there being no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments, the present revisions are fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 10. I have gone through the judgment of trial court as well as appellate court and also considered the argument raised on behalf of both the sides and perused the record of the case. 11. Before imparting my verdict, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial. 12. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioners, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them P.W.-3, Akhtar Ansari, P.W.-4, Md. Azmal Ansari, P.W.-5, Anisul Ansari and P.W.-7, Katuwa Ansari have been declared hostile by the prosecution and not supported the prosecution story. P.W.-1, S.I., Swapan Kumar Mahata has stated that he is the informant of this case and was posted as In-charge of Kalubattan O.P. on 28.05.2005. At about 7:00 A.M., on receiving information regarding illegal coal smuggling at Urma Ghat of Panchet Dam, he proceeded there along with A.S.I. Arun Prasad, Police Constable Shivjee Singh and other members of armed police force. On seeing the raiding party, the accused persons escaped in boats. While returning, between Urma and Kharadih, accused Mithu Ansari, Sham 2026:JHHC:25828 7 @ Tanwar Ansari, Pappu Ansari and Azad Ansari along with several hundred persons armed with deadly weapons, surrounded and abused the police party and threatened them with dire consequences if they tried to stop coal smuggling. The mob pushed the police party towards the mosque at Urma Village. In the meantime, Police Constable Yogeshwar Yadav was taken away by the accused persons and kept at a secret place, while Shivjee was pushed and his wristwatch was snatched. On information being given to the District Headquarters, police forces from nearby police stations and outposts reached the spot. M.L.A. Aparna Sen Gupta also arrived, and after persuasion, the police personnel were released at about 4:00–5:00 P.M. This witness has identified his signature on the written report, marked as Exhibit-1 and the endorsement of registration, marked as Exhibit. 1/1. P.W. 2, S.I., Anil Kumar Kar has stated that on 20.07.2005, he was posted as In-charge of the O.P. at Kalubattan. The investigation of Nirsa P.S. Case No. 117/2005 was handed over to him by A.S.I. Arun Prasad. He thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 379, 323, 332, 353, 504, 505, 506 and 365 of the I.P.C. He has exhibited the charge- sheet bearing his handwriting and signature, marked as Exhibit-2. P.W. 6, Yogeshwar Prasad Yadav has stated that the incident occurred on 28.05.2005. On that day, at about 7:00 A.M., he along with the other members of the raiding party, had gone to the riverbank of Urma village upon receiving information regarding the smuggling of illegal coal by boats. As they reached there, he saw the accused 2026:JHHC:25828 8 persons loading coal onto boats. Upon seeing the police party, the accused persons fled on the boats. He has further stated that, while returning, when they reached near the mosque, the accused persons, namely Mithu Ansari, Azad Ansari, and about one hundred other persons, surrounded them and forcibly made them sit near the mosque. Accused Mithu Ansari then took him on a motorcycle to a Bhatta, where he was confined for about two hours. Thereafter, he was released, and he returned to the mosque. He has further stated that the Dy. S.P., M.L.A., and other persons had gathered there and his rifle had also been snatched, which was returned after about twenty minutes. 13. From the discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the genesis, manner and place of occurrence is absolutely not proved. Both the court below has acted beyond the weight of evidence and only taking sympathetic view with the police personnel, recorded perverse findings regarding guilt of the petitioners. 14. It is further evident that in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no incriminating circumstance has been proved rather a general compound question has been formulated as under:- “Ůʲ 1.- ভा आपने गवाहों का बयान सुना है? उȅर- जी हाँ। Ůʲ 2.-आपके ऊपर साশ है िक आप िदनांक 28.05.2005 को ঋातः 08:15 बजे खराडीह एवं उरमा के बीच मोड़ पर नाजायज़ मजमा बनाकर हरवे-हिथयार से लैस होकर सरकारी काय१ म७ बाधा पॽँचाए एवं 2026:JHHC:25828 9 पुिलसकिम१यों के साथ गाली-गलौज िकए तथा एक पुिलसकम५ की घड़ी छीन िलए तथा एक पुिलसकम५ को कहीं िछपा िदए, ভा कहना है? उȅर- ऐसी बात नहीं है। Ůʲ 3.- सफ़ाई म७ ভा कहना है? उȅर- झूठा के स है।“ 15. No other incriminating circumstances has been get explained by the petitioners. The single circumstance in the form of compound question doesn’t indicate any material to be considered as incriminating against the petitioners. Therefore, it appears that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners have been passed without any cogent and reliable evidence available on record. 16. Admittedly, the petitioners were not acquainted with the police personnel prior to occurrence but the F.I.R. was lodged with their name parentage and complete address only on the basis of suspicion that they were involved in black marketing of coal. It is admitted fact that not a single piece of coal was recovered from the possession of petitioners. It is also admitted fact that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners showing their involvement in black marketing of coal prior to alleged occurrence. 17. Significantly, not a single police personnel has got injured even the Yogeshwar Prasad Yadav (P.W.-6) who is alleged to have been abducted has simply stated that he was brought on motorcycle from Masjid to a Bhatta thereafter again he was brought to Masjid. No stolen wrist watch has been recovered from any of the petitioners. The most of the serious offences leveled against the petitioners has been 2026:JHHC:25828 10 disbelieved by learned Trial Court such as 379, 365, 148, 323 & 332 of the I.P.C. and also by Appellate Court for the offence under Sections 143 & 504 of the I.P.C. 18. In view of above discussions and reasons, I find that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well Appellate Court is absolutely perverse illegal and based on beyond the weight of evidence available on record. No incriminating circumstance has been proved and got explained against the petitioners. Therefore, I find legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and merits in this revision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby set aside and both the revisions are allowed. 19. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 20. Petitioners are on bail, as such they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 21. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 27/08/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 28/08/2026