2026:JHHC:9102 Page | 1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 365 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 365 of 2025 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur (Deoghar) in Sessions Trial No.129 of 2019 arising out of Palajori P.S. Case No.146 of 2018] Abir Mian @ Ibrahim Mian @ Ibra, aged about 48 years, son of Late Sakur Mian @ Tentu Mian, resident of Village Pokhria, P.O Bansbutia, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Pranabesh Kr. Paul Advocate : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, A.P.P. Dated: 01st April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur (Deoghar) in Sessions Trial No.129 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (In short I.P.C) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging an F.I.R. being Palojori P.S. Case No. 146 of 2018 against the appellant for the offence under Section 413/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Forest Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that on 27.10.2018, a secret information was received by the S.D.P.O, Sarath that one Abir Mian @ Ibrahim Mian @ Ibra is transporting illegal coal on his Bolero pick-up van after illegal mining from Saharjori Forest Area. On which, a 2026:JHHC:9102 Page | 2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 365 of 2025 raiding team was constituted and they went for raid. During the course of raid, raiding team had intercepted a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.JH04P-4988 near Jargadi bridge. On being asked, the driver of said vehicle disclosed his name as Abir Mian @ Ibrahim Mian @ Ibra who is also the owner of the said vehicle and he has having no driving licence. When he was asked for documents regarding the coal, he told that he has no documents and accepted that he has excavated twenty-five quintals illegal coal from Saharjori Forest Area and the same was being carried to Dumka for sale and he has also disclosed the name of his partner as Salamat Ansari, who is now standing at Kandrasol and after taking him from Kandrasol, they will go to Dumka and after selling the coal, they will divide the amount themselves. 5. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet under sections 413, 414 & 34 IPC and Section 33 of the Forest Act. Upon which, cognizance has been taken and accordingly, charge has been framed under Sections 413, 414 & 34 of the IPC. The case has been committed to the Court of Session to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. For substantiating the prosecution's story, altogether six witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 Baldev Shukla, P.W.2 Shivbali Prasad Gupta, P.W.3 Nawin Kumar Singh (informant), P.W.4 Murari Kumar, P.W.5 Kumar Gaurav, and P.W.6 Subhash Ram (I.O). 7. P.W-1 Baldev Shukla is police personnel and a seizure-list witness. He has stated that in paragraph-5 of his deposition that the driver of the vehicle told that the quantity of coal to be 25 quintals. They did not weight the alleged coal. In para-13, he has deposed that there is a lot of movement of people on the road of the place of occurrence but neither statement of those people have been recorded, nor coal has been seized in their presence. 8. P.W.-2 Shivbali Prasad Gupta is also a police personnel. He stated in paragraph-5 that there was movement of people but police force did not try to stop them. In para-6 he has stated that his statement has been recorded in the police station but he cannot say when his statement has been recorded before or after registration of the F.I.R. In para-7, he has stated that he has no personal 2026:JHHC:9102 Page | 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 365 of 2025 knowledge regarding coal. In para-10 he has stated that the driver told the coal was 25 quintals but they did not weight the said coal. 9. P.W.3 Nawin Kumar Singh is the informant. He stated in para-6 of his deposition that the Forest Department had not filed any report to police regarding the theft of coal. In para-10 he has stated that no local people were found at the place of occurrence. 10. P.W.4 Murari Kumar is also a police personnel. He stated in para-4 of his deposition that he has no personal knowledge regarding the theft of coal. In para-5 he has deposed that he gave his statement to the I.O., and put his signature but he did not read what was written. 11. P.W.5 Kumar Gaurav is also a police personnel. He stated in para-4 of his deposition that the articles produced before court have no seal. In para-5 he has stated that there is no signature of any judicial Magistrate on that articles. In para-6 he deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding the occurrence. In para-7 he has deposed that such type of coal is available in market. 12. P.W.-6 Subhash Ram is the I.O. of this case. He stated in para-14 of his deposition that he does not know about the type of coal. He did not weight the alleged coal. In para-16 he has deposed that the witnesses of this case are his senior officers and junior officer. There are no independent witnesses. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is bad for the reasons:- (i) There was no theft report. (ii) The onus has been shifted upon the accused stating that they have failed to prove that it is not a theft coal. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and also submits that the trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant, but could not point out any material suggesting that the prosecution has brought any material to suggest that it is a theft articles which has been recovered from the possession of this appellant. 2026:JHHC:9102 Page | 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 365 of 2025 15. Considering the submission of the parties, the evidence on record and the proposition of law this Court is of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 414 of the IPC is lacking behind. Section 414 IPC is quoted herein below:- “414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property-whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 16. Thus, on perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed above, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredients of Section 414 of the IPC for convicting the appellant under Section 414 IPC. Therefore, the conviction under Section 414 IPC is unsustainable and accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar in S.T No.129 of 2029 is hereby, set-aside. 17. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed and accordingly, disposed of. 18. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 01st April, 2026 Raja/Uploaded on 06.04.2026