2026:JHHC:12341-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No.09 of 2026 Babita Devi aged about 43 years W/o Bal Mukund Prasad R/o Vill-Nawadih Baray, PO – Nawadih, PS – Bishnugarh Dist – Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bablu Mandal @ Bablu Prasad age 36 years S/o Late Sarju Mahto 3. Sunita Devi age 30 years W/o Bablu Mandal Both R/o Vill- Nawadih Baray, PO- Nawadih, PS- Bishnugarh Dist- Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … Respondents ------- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the Resp. Nos.2 & 3 : None ------- Order No.03/Dated- 28.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 despite service of notice. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.12.2025 passed in S.T. Case No.322 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 342, 323, 307, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been alleged that while the informant was cleaning her house on 18.03.2022, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with the other accused persons had entered into the house and had committed assault upon her and when her mother-in-law came to rescue her, she was also subjected to assault which led to the informant and her mother-in-law sustaining injuries. It has further been alleged that the mangalsutra of the informant worth Rs.70,000/- was snatched away by the respondent Nos. 2 2026:JHHC:12341-DB and 3 and they had also threatened of outraging the modesty of the informant. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 194 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 307, 354, 379/34 of the I.P.C. 6. 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.322 of 2023. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 342, 323, 307, 354, 379/34 of the I.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and ultimately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag vide impugned judgment dated 02.12.2025 had acquitted the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them. 8. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the informant was not served with the summons and in fact, the learned Trial Court had not taken proper steps to ensure that the informant and doctor as well as the Investigating Officer are present during trial to give their evidence. Learned counsel submits that so far as the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution are concerned, they are consistent with respect to the assault committed upon the informant and her mother-in-law but these facts have been brushed aside by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them. 9. On a perusal of the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2025, it has come to light that the informant has not been examined and neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer have been examined by the prosecution. It further appears that most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and some have stated about a land dispute existing between the parties which cannot rule out the false implication of the 2026:JHHC:12341-DB respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Moreover, there appears to be several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses with respect to the place of occurrence and so far as P.W.1 and P.W.2 are concerned, nothing have been stated by them with respect to the attempt made by the respondent No. 2 in outraging the modesty of the informant. The purported assault committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 upon the informant and her mother-in-law has not been proved as the material witnesses have not been examined and considering the fact that there are several contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution which reveals that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been falsely implicated at the behest of the informant on account of a land dispute as stated by some of the witnesses, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment dated 02.12.2025. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this acquittal appeal stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 28th April, 2026 Sachin/ Uploaded On: 06/05/2026