2026:JHHC:11250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.103 of 2024 ---- Shiva Jee Singh @ Shivaji Singh, aged about 81 years, Son of Late T.N. Singh, resident of 12, Bagmati Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, Near Income Tax Office, P.O & P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Niraj Dubey @ Neeraj Dubey, son of Madanmohan Dubey 3. Rinki Dubey @ Rinki Devi, wife of Niraj Dubey, Both are residents of Old Purulia Road, Mango, P.O & P.S. Mango, Town- Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, A.P.P For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Binit Sinha, Adv. ---- 08/Dated: 18th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.96 of 2023, arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.526 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3115 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the accused persons were acquitted for the charges under Sections 323/34, 341/34 & 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur has convicted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34 & 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 r/w section 34 of the IPC. They have further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence under Sections 379 r/w section 34 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for thirty days respectively. 2026:JHHC:11250 2 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.103 of 2024 3. The criminal law has put into motion by lodging an F.I.R being Mango P.S. Case No.526 of 2014, corresponding to G.R Case No.3115 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 427 & 34 of the IPC against the accused persons. 4. The F.I.R has been lodged on the written report of the informant namely, Shivaji Singh. The brief facts of the case are that a land bearing Plot No.3922, Khata No.1249, Ward No.8, Holding No.14, Area 0.30.40 hectares, situated at Old Purulia Road, has a house constructed thereon in the name of his wife Smt. Parvati Devi. On the North-Eastern part of the said plot, there is a two storey building which has been forcibly occupied by both the accused persons. On the northern side, adjacent to the said two storey building, there exists a boundary wall of the Forest Department running from east to west. The informant came to know that said boundary wall had been demolished by the accused persons. Thereafter, he went to enquire with his mother-in-law namely, Smt. Manna Devi. Both the accused persons became aggressive, they pushed him, slapped his mother-in-law, and snatched a gold chain weighing about 18 grams from her neck. They also threatened to kill him. His mother-in-law is about 71 years old and due to which they could not resist and somehow managed to save their lives and returned back. 5. To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether three witnesses have been examined. 6. P.W-1 Arun Kumar Maheshwari is the eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 01.10.2014 at about 09:30 A.M. He heard hulla which was being done there. This witness stated that he saw the accused persons slapped Manna Devi and snatched a gold chain. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there is a land dispute and the disputed land was in the name of Parvati Devi, but he could not say from whom it was purchased. 7. P.W-2 Shiva Jee Singh @ Shivaji Singh is the informant himself. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of occurrence, he reached there with his mother-in-law namely, Manna Devi and asked from the accused persons as to why they had damaged the boundary-wall and then, accused persons started abusing them. 2026:JHHC:11250 3 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.103 of 2024 In his cross-examination, the accused persons were residing in his building since October, 2012. For taking possession on the ground floor of his house, he had made a complaint in the police station and he had not filed the documents of land in the Court. He also admitted that he had not filed the papers of gold chain which was snatched. 8. P.W.3 is Abhimanyu Singh, who has stated that the occurrence took place on 01.10.2014, a dispute arose between both the sides regarding dismantling of boundary wall the house of Manna Devi and a quarrel was taking place between them. He has stated that accused persons were tenants of Manna Devi but had refuse to pay the rent. He further deposed that the accused Rinki Dubey caught hold of Manna Devi, while the Neeraj Dubey slapped her. In his cross-examination, this witness expressed ignorance about rent dues and any prior dispute between the parties. However, he has admitted that the gold chain of Manna Devi was missing after the incident. 9. The learned Trial Court has convicted the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323/34, 341/34 & 379/34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2023 has been preferred before the Appellate Court. After re- evaluating the evidence, the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the Appellate Court. Against the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court. 10. While passing the judgment of acquittal, reason has been assigned in paragraph No.23 of the said judgment dated 06.07.2024, which is as under:- “23. In course of trial of the present case, the I.O has not been examined by the prosecution. It settled law that in a criminal case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer has its own importance, but non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal in all the cases, it has not caused prejudice to the accused persons. The non-examination of the investigating officer in present case have significant consequences. Firstly, the place of occurrence being the disputed land has not been properly proved. Secondly, the availability of independent witnesses and non-examination during investigation might have been explained by the I.O only. Thirdly, the non- examination of injured victim by a doctor regarding presence of injury, if any, on her body, whether done or not is to be explained by the I.O. Fourthly, the existence of previous dispute and possibility of false implication might have been investigated by I.O. Fifthly, the delay in 2026:JHHC:11250 4 Acq. Appeal (S.J) No.103 of 2024 lodging FIR by the informant might have been explained by the I.O. Sixth, the allegation of theft and steps taken to recover the stolen property might have been explained by I.O. Thus, non-examination of Investigating Officer without mentioning any reason creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby, creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.” 11. It further appears that the appellant is the son-in-law, who has filed the present appeal in the capacity of the informant. While the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C (now, Section 413 of BNSS, 2023) is maintainable at the instance of the victim only. 12. Thus, this Court finds that the possibility of false allegation has not been ruled out rather, it is writ large upon the face of the entire factual matrix. Neither the investigating officer, nor the injured witness have been examined. The alleged injury has not been shown to the Doctor and as such, no injury report has been brought on record. 13. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.96 of 2023, arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.526 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.3115 of 2014. 14. In the result, the present acquittal appeal is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 18th April, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 28.04.2026