2026:JHHC:12718 1 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (S.J.) No. 25 of 2025 ----- (Against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1540 of 2012 corresponding to Garhwa P.S. Case No. 275 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa) Kamlesh Chaubey @ Kamlesh Kumar Chaubey, aged about 47 years, S/o- Pradeep Kumar Chaubey, R/O- village- Ursugi, P.O. + P.S.- Garhwa, Dist- Garhwa, Jharkhand --- --- Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Shiv Shankar Chaubey aged about 82 years, S/o Late Sudama Chaubey, 3.Pramod Kumar Chaubey aged about 55 years and 4.Arvind Kumar Chaubey aged about 52 years both are S/o Shiv Shankar Chaubey, all R/o Village- Dipuwa, P.O. & PS.- Garhwa, Dist- Garhwa --- --- Respondents ….... For the Appellant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR J U D G M E N T 30.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel the appellant; learned A.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 4. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa has acquitted the Respondent no. 2 to 4 of the charge levelled against them and set aside the judgment of conviction and 2026:JHHC:12718 2 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 order of sentence dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa in G.R. Case No. 1540 of 2012 (arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No. 275 of 2012) whereby and where under the private respondents were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323 of the IPC. However, after conviction they have been released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a written report dated 28.08.2012 by the Informant- Kamlesh Choubey being Garhwa P.S. Case No. 275 of 2012 before the Officer -In- Charge of Garhwa Police Station. The brief fact of the case is that on 28.08.2012 in the morning when the informant went to visit his land bearing khata no. 32 plot no. 117 area 0.04 decimal situated at Mauza Deepuwa PS-Garhwa, he saw accused persons Shiv Shankar Chaubey, Pramod Kumar Chaubey and Arvind Kumar Chaubey engaged with some labourers making construction on his land. He objected it and called upon police force. Upon seeing the police force the accused persons became aggressive and assaulted him with rod and fists, due to which he received grievous injuries on his whole body. 4. On the basis of written application above mentioned Garhwa P.S Case no. 275/12 dated 28.08.2012 u/s 341, 323, 504,506/34 IPC was registered. 5. After investigation the I.O has submitted the chargesheet being charge-sheet no. 341/2012 in the Court under Section 341, 323, 504, 506/34 IPC against all the accused persons - private respondents herein. 6. The Court took cognizance under Section 341, 323, 504, 506/34 2026:JHHC:12718 3 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 IPC. After supplying police paper, substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. After culmination of the trial, the accused persons have been convicted under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC and post-conviction they have been released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 of the Cr.P.C 8. Being aggrieved with the judgement of the conviction, the accused persons preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024. The learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa after reappreciating the evidences vide judgment dated 11.02.2025 has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhwa and acquitted the accused persons from the charges. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the informant has preferred the present acquittal appeal. 10. To substantiate the charge altogether four prosecution witnesses were examined. Their brief statements are as follows: I. P.W.1 – Ayodhya Ram is an eye witness to the incident and has stated that he was coming to court from Bazar and when he reached near the residence of Dy. S.P. then he saw that the accused Shivshankar Choubey, Pramod Choubey and Arvind Choubey were assaulting Kamlesh Choubey. The reason of occurrence was land dispute. He identifies the accused persons of the case. In his cross examination he has stated that he saw the occurrence from road side and at that time no police personnel were present at the place of occurrence. II. PW-2 Nandu Prasad is also an eye witness and has stated in his evidence that on the date of occurence he came to court 2026:JHHC:12718 4 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 after purchasing the medicine from Garhwa and when he reached near the residence of Dy. S.P. then he heard some noise and saw that the accused Shivshankar Choubey, Pramod Choubey and Arvind Choubey were assaulting Kamlesh Choubey. Pramod Choubey was having rod and others were assaulting by legs to Kamlesh Choubey. The police came the place of occurrence then he left that place. In his cross examination he has admitted about the land dispute between Pravind Sahu and Shivshankar Choubey. The occurrence was taken place near the house of Kamlesh Choubey. III. PW-3 Keshwanand Chaturvedi stated in his evidence that he has no knowledge about the occurrence and the police has not recorded his statement. This witness has been declared hostile. IV. PW -4 Kamlesh Kumar Choubey is the informant of the case and he has stated in his evidence that the occurrence was taken place on 28.08.2012 at about 10.00 AM in the morning. At that time he went to his land bearing khata no 32 plot no. 117 area 4 decimal situated at Dipuwan Mohalla NH 75 where he saw that the accused Shivshankar Choubey, Pramod Choubey and Arwind Choubey were making construction of wall on the said land. He opposed them, then all the accused person threatened him to sell the said land to them otherwise be ready for dire consequences. Thereafter he called the police. In the meantime, the accused Arvind choubey and Shivshankar Choubey started to assaulting him by fist and legs and Pramod Choubey was having iron rod and all of them brutally assaulted him and due to which he got injury on his whole body. In his cross examination he has stated that the said land was purchased by his grand father in the year 1991. He has also stated that when 2026:JHHC:12718 5 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 he went to the place of occurrence for the second time with the Police, all the accused persons started assaulting him. Further he has admitted that a case bearing no. 164 of 2014 is pending against him and his brother. 11. Referring to the above examination of the prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are clear cut allegation of use of force and injury and negating the same by the appellate court is not proper in the eyes of law as once oral testimony is there, it cannot be negated merely because such evidence does not get corroborated in the absence of injury report. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents- accused persons and the State have supported the judgment of acquittal. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on perusal of the record, it appears that: 1. There is a dispute regarding a land bearing khata no 32 plot no. 117 area 4 decimal situated at Mauza- Deepuwa. 2. The accused persons were making construction over the said piece of land, meaning thereby, it was in their physical possession. 3. Although, the allegation suggests that there was a brutal beating and the informant got treated in the hospital but no injury report has been adduced as evidence. 4. There is no material on record to suggest that the land in question belongs to the informant. 5. As per the P.W.4, he is a contractual government employee in Education Department and the on date of incident is 28.08.2012 at about 10.00 A.M., which was not a national holiday, so his presence at the place of 2026:JHHC:12718 6 Acq. Appeal (SJ) No. 25 of 2025 occurrence at that time on a working day has also not been explained. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find that the prosecution story is full of lacunae rather the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and the same is just and proper. 15. In the result, the judgment of acquittal dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 is fully justified and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 16. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated 30th April 2026 A. Mohanty Jharkhand High Court Uploaded ____/____/2026