2026:JHHC:1667-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 110 of 2025 --------- State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. & District-Garhwa. ..…Appellant(s) Versus 1. Chandrasekhar Dubey @ Dadai Dubey S/O Late Anirudh Dubey R/O Village- Choka, P.O. and P.S. Kandi, District- Garhwa. 2. Dheeraj Kumar S/O Sushil Kumar Dubey R/O Village- Baliyari, P.O. and P.S. Kandi, District - Garhwa. 3. Satyendra Tiwary S/O Ramkrit Tiwary R/O Village- Amar, P.O. and P.S. Majhiaon, District- Garhwa. 4. Baru @ Prabhat Kumar Dubey S/O Ashok Narayan Dubey, R/O Village- Choka, P.O. and P.S. Kandi, District- Garhwa. 5. Rajkumar S/O Late Baij Nath Thakur, R/O Village- Garhwa, P.O. and P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. 6. Dheeraj Tiwary S/O Nawal Kishore Tiwary R/O Village- Chandrapura, P.O. and P.S. Kandi, District - Garhwa. 7. Sri Ram Pandey S/O Sri Ambika Pandey R/O Village- Pipradih, P.O. and P.S.- Kandi, District-Garhwa. .....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Respondent(s) : --------- 02/Dated:-21.01.2026 I.A. No. 15746 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. 2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2026:JHHC:1667-DB 2 4. I.A. No. 15746 of 2025 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 12542 of 2025 5. This application has been preferred by the appellant under Section 419(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for granting leave to pursue the appeal. 6. On consideration of the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the appellant is granted permission to pursue the appeal. Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 110 of 2025 7. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.02.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. Case No. 106/2022, arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 269/2015, whereby and whereunder the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 have been acquitted from graver charges of Sections 307, 337 and 333, while the respondent No. 1 has been acquitted from all the charges. 8. At the outset, learned P.P. submits that so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, he is now no more. Therefore, this appeal is restricted only with respect to the respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 9. The prosecution case reveals that the respondent No. 1 was arrested by the Police and while he was being taken to the Court, the respondent No. 1 had instigated his 2026:JHHC:1667-DB 3 followers which compelled the Police to initiate a lathi charge and the situation aggravated resulting in a road block and shouting of slogans. The Police Force was also abused and was the target of brickbats for which some of the persons involved were arrested. In course of such scuffle, one Constable got a serious injury on his head. 10. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Garhwa (Town) P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015 was instituted against the respondents. 11. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 106 of 2022. Charge was framed under Sections 147, 149, 109, 341/149, 342/149, 337/149, 427/149, 307/149, 353/149, 33/149, 504/149, 506/149 I.P.C. against the accused persons which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 10 witnesses. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record had acquitted the respondent No. 1 from all the charges levelled against him but so far as the rest of the respondents are concerned, they have been convicted for a lesser offence under Sections 147, 2026:JHHC:1667-DB 4 341/149, 342/149, 323/149, 427/149, 353/149, 504/149, 506/149 I.P.C., while they have been acquitted from graver charges under Sections 307, 337 and 333 of the I.P.C., which has led the State to prefer this appeal. 13. The learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that though, one of the Constables had suffered injuries but the medical report indicates that the injury was simple in nature and Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not attracted. 14. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has also come to a conclusion that the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were members of an unlawful assembly, who had obstructed the Police in discharging their official duty and had also broken the glass of the vehicle. 15. The learned Trial Court, therefore, has correctly come to a conclusion that no charge under Sections 307, 337 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code has been proved against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the reasons assigned therein and therefore, the said respondents were convicted for a lesser offence. 16. The judgment under consideration is well-reasoned and learned P.P. has failed to point out any major contradiction or ambiguities which would implore us to reverse the findings of the learned Trial Court with respect to 2026:JHHC:1667-DB 5 the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 for the charges under Sections 307, 337 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, which accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) January 21, 2026 Kunal/vikas uploaded 28.01.2026