2026:JHHC:6910 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal No.13 of 2011 .... [Against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.03.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.104 of 2008 by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh] .... The Union of India represented by Inspector of Mines now designated as Deputy Director of Mines Safety, Ramgarh Sub-Region namely Umesh Kumar Sharma @ U.K.Sharma, son of Late Rameshwar Sharma, having its office situated at P.O. and P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh and resident of Central Hospital Colony, Nai Sarai, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh .… Appellant Versus 1. Yogendra Yadav, Son of Late Parmeshwar Yadav 2. Ashok Ram, Son of Late Mundrika Ram 3. Dinesh Kumar, Son of Davendra Kumar Sinha All resident of Village-Argada Colliery, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Argada, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant : Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C. For the Respondents : Ms. Isha Mittal, Amicus Curiae .... 13/16.03.2026 1. Since nobody appears on behalf of the respondents, hence, Ms. Isha Mittal, learned counsel, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 2. The present acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.03.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2008 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh wherein he has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2008 passed in Cr. Complaint Case No.57 of 2006, T.R. No.497 of 2008 by the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a complaint case filed by the appellant- UOI through the Inspector of Mines now designated as the Deputy Director of mines Safety, Ramgarh for an accident took place on 28.10.2005 at 01.15 P.M. in Arganda Colliery. During relevant period when the offences were committed, the opposite Respondents were acting is their respective capacity. The authority inquired into the matter and revealed that on 28.10.2005 at about 01.15 P.M., while a loader was loading coal, suddenly a layer of roof stone parted from the roof from a height of about 2.5 meters fell down and struck the loader standing by the side in the head, there by inflicting serious head injury which proved fatal. During inquiry various violations were found by the authority concerned. Thereafter a complaint care being Compliant Case No. 57 of 2006 for trial of offence u/s 72 A, 72 (C) (1) (a) and 72 (c) (1) (c) of the Mines Act, 1952 for contravention of provision under Sections 57(a)(n)(m), 22(2)(3) and 22 (A) (2) of 2026:JHHC:6910 2 the Mines Act in the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh was registered. Subsequently this case has been transferred to the Court of S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh for trial where the accused person denied the charges levelled upon them. 4. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance has been taken and to substantiate the prosecution story, altogether seven witnesses have been examined. 5. P.W.-1, the Deputy Director of Mines Safety and complainant, deposed that he received information on 28.02.2005 regarding a fatal accident at Argada Colliery and thereafter he conducted an enquiry at the site. During inspection, he found that a roof stone had fallen on loader Sukhlal Bedia, causing his death. He proved several documents including reports, forwarding letters, witness statements (Ext.-1 to Ext.-14), show-cause notices and replies (Ext.-15 to Ext.-18, X to X/3), enquiry report (Ext.-19), and complaint petition (Ext.-20). On enquiry, he found that mine supports were not properly fitted and had collapsed, leading to the accident. He held Mining Sardar Yogendra Yadav, Overman Ashok Rana, and Assistant Manager Dinesh Kumar responsible, stating that they violated provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. In cross-examination, he affirmed that the accident was not due to blast or any stone momentum, but due to improper support. No material contradiction was elicited to discredit his testimony. His evidence fully supports and corroborates the prosecution case, establishing negligence on the part of the accused persons. P.W.-2 is Dilip Kr. Singh, an officer in C.C.L. and Project Officer at Sirka Colliery, deposed that on 28.10.2005, during inspection at Argada Colliery, he received information about a roof-fall accident in Sector-2. He visited the place of occurrence and found that Sukhlal Bedia had been injured and later died. He observed that the roof had fallen and stated that such accidents generally occur due to lack of proper support. He further stated that at the time of occurrence, officials including Mining Sirdar Yogendra Yadav, Overman Arjun Ray, and Assistant Manager Dinesh Kumar were present. However, he was not an eyewitness to the incident and reached the site only after the accident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is not an expert and his opinion was based on his experience. P.W.-3 is Birendra Kr. Sinha, Manager, Argada Colliery Underground Mines stated that a roof-fall accident occurred on 28.10.2005 in which Sukhlal Bedia was fatally injured. He reached the site after about two hours and saw the fallen roof. He confirmed that relevant officials were on duty at the time. He is not an eyewitness. His suggestion about geological disturbance in cross-examination is not reliable as he is not an expert. 2026:JHHC:6910 3 P.W.-4 is Ram Shubhaw, who has deposed that the accident occurred on 28.10.2005 at Argada Colliery, where Sukhlal Bedia was fatally injured due to a roof fall. He stated that relevant officials were on duty at the time. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present at the exact place of occurrence. He further stated that before the accident the props were tight, but after the accident some were found loose. P.W.-5 is Baldeo, a roof dresser at Argada Colliery, deposed that a roof- fall accident occurred in which Sukhlal Bedia was injured and later died. He stated that before the accident, he had dressed the roof and Yogendra Yadav, Mining Sardar was on duty at that time. He left the place after completing his work and was not present at the time of occurrence P.W.-6 is Kamal Nath, who is a loader at Argada Colliery, deposed that on 28.10.2005 at about 1:15 P.M., a boulder fell from a height at the loading point, dislodging props and causing a roof fall, which fatally injured Sukhlal Bedia. He stated that he and other workers were present, and that Mining Sardar Yogendra Yadav, Overman Ashok Rana, and Manager Dinesh Kumar were on duty at the time. P.W.-7 is Raj Kumar Gosai, a loader at Argada Colliery, deposed the same as stated by P.W.-6 and supported the prosecution version regarding the roof- fall accident causing the death of Sukhlal Bedia. 6. After conclusion of trial, the trial court has convicted the accused person against which a criminal appeal has been preferred being Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2008. The appellate court after examining the material available on record has recorded the judgment of acquittal and that judgment of acquittal has been made impugned in the present proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the place of occurrence is not in dispute. Witnesses have stated that there is negligence on the part of the respondents and in view of the above material, judgment of acquittal has been passed. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellate court has clearly examined all the witnesses and considering the evidence of PWs.-1, 2, 3 & 4 has recorded the finding that there is no material on record suggesting that the accused were negligent in performing their duty. It has been further submitted that it is the case based upon the negligence which has been criminalized but there has to be a cogent material suggesting negligent on the part of the accused person. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the prosecution has examined the witnesses of P.Ws.-1, 2, 3 & 4. 2026:JHHC:6910 4 The depositions suggest that the duty has been performed properly rather it was latent defect not the patent defect. 10. Appreciation of evidence is in the domain of the court. If there are two views of possibility and one has resulted in acquittal then that cannot be interfered. 11. Considering the material available on record as discussed above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal dated 30.03.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.104 of 2008 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. 12. The assistance given by Ms. Isha Mittal, learned counsel, is highly appreciable. 13. Let this order be communicated to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, for the purpose of remuneration to be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as permissible. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 16.03.2026 Shahid/ Uploaded on 01.04.2026