2026:JHHC:11249 1 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.95 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.95 of 2024 ---- Awinash Chandra Rai, son of Late Harday Narayan Ray, age 46 years, Resident of Panchayat dhengadih, Village dhengadih, P.O Ghoranjee and P.S Deori, Dhengadih, District Giridih, (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2.Ramdhan Tiwari, S/o Hiralal Tiwari, age 32 years, R/o Village Karanjo, P.O & P.S. Margomunda, Subdivision, Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Ms. Sonia Hansda, Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam , A.P.P ---- 15/Dated: 18th April, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2017, arising out of G.R Case No.104 of 2017, corresponding to T.R No.130 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the accused person was acquitted for the charges under Sections 279, 337 & 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Sections 337 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sections 304A of the IPC and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging fardbeyan before the Officer-in-Charge, Madhupur Police Station, for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC against accused person. 2026:JHHC:11249 2 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.95 of 2024 4. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as unfolded in the written report of the informant namely, Awinash Chandra Rai, in brief is that, the informant received information that on 24.03.2011 at 12:00 P.M, his brother-in-law namely, Bhudeo Pd. Choudhary has met with an accident and he is admitted in Madhupur Hospital. Thereafter, the informant came to Madhupur Hospital where he came to know that his brother-in-law took petrol in Kanniram Petrol Pump for his new motorcycle and as soon as he reached the Sarath-Madhupur Main Road, a person riding a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his brother-in- law’s motorcycle, as a result of which, he sustained injury. He was referred to Apollo Hospital for better treatment. During treatment, he died. It is also alleged that motorcycle bearing Registration No.JH04-5432 dashed against the motorcycle of his brother-in-law. 5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether six witnesses have been examined. Their depositions are as follows:- P.W.1 Awinash Chandra Rai is the informant of this case, who had not seen any occurrence from his eyes as he was in Giridih at the time of occurrence. Upon receiving information of accident from an unknown person, he came to Madhupur Hospital where he found his brother-in-law in an unconscious condition. He is merely a hearsay witness to the occurrence and has not stated which motorcycle was involved in the alleged incident. P.W.2 Abhay Kumar and P.W.3 Mushraf Hussain, who have been declared hostile. P.W.4 Md. Salim is an independent witness and he has identified his signature in seizure list dated 30.03.2011, which has been marked as Ext.2/1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he put his signature at the instance of Officer-in-Charge. However, he is unable to say that what was written on the therein. P.W.5 Upendra Kumar is a seizure-list witness, who has identified his signature on the seizure-list dated 30.03.2011, which has been marked as Ext.2/2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the police took his signature on a plain paper. P.W.6 Birendra Pandey is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has deposed that the occurrence took place due to dashing of motorcycle 2026:JHHC:11249 3 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.95 of 2024 bearing Reg. No.JH04-5432 by its driver in a discover motorcycle. He has also stated that he prepared the seizure list in presence of two independent witnesses and has collected the post mortem report of deceased Bhudeo Pd.Choudhary also. 6. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted appellant for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2017 has been filed before the Appellate Court. The relevant paragraph No.7 of the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 is relevant, which is as under: “7. Heard both sides and also meticulously perused the evidence available on the record. P.W.1, who is the informant of this case has not seen any occurrence from his eyes and he was present in Giridih at the time of occurrence which took place in Madhupur. P.W.2 and 3 have turned hostile and they have deposed nothing in favour of the prosecution case. P.W.4 and 5 are witnesses of the seizure-list but they have stated that the police took their signature on plain paper and they signed on the seizure list on the saying of Officer-in-Charge. P.W.6 is the I.O of this case, but during the whole investigation, it has not come out to whom the motorcycle bearing Registration No.JH04-5432 belonged which is alleged to be involved in the alleged occurrence.” 7. This Court has gone through the evidence and finds that it is a case of no evidence and as such, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the alleged offending vehicle or the accused person was involved in the above accident. In the absence of any evidence, the judgment of acquittal dated 21.01.2019 has rightly been passed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court. 8. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 18th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 28.04.2026