Dismissed¶¶27

Ghanshyam Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Nov 2025Cr.Rev./850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; revision under Sections 438 & 442 BNSS 2023 challenging acquittal; offences under Sections 380, 411, 457 IPC; Rikhiya P.S. Case No.160/2020; G.R. Case No.1319/2021; Deoghar; Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquittal dated 13.02.2024; Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 dismissed 28.01.2025 by Additional Sessions Judge-II; theft of gold ornaments and cash; recovery of Rs.3,000 and mobile set from accused Ram Pravesh Mandal; FIR silent on mobile theft; revision dismissed, no interference.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality in the orders/judgments of both the learned Courts below; no case of interference is made out, and accordingly the criminal revision petition is dismissed. ¶¶25

Ghanshyam Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:33013 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2025

¶3

Ghanshyam Kumar Singh @ Ghanshyam Singh, S/o Krishnanand Singh, aged about 49 years, resident of C/o Harish Prasad Singh, Anand Nagar, Rikhiya Bypass Road, Deoghar, P.O. Rikhiya, P.S. Deoghar Town, Dist.Deoghar at permanent resident of Sahora, P.O. & P.S. Sangrampur, Dist.- Munger (Bihar) … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Ram Pravesh Mandal, S/o Ramakant Mandal, resident of VillageBandana, P.O. & P.S. Rikhiya, Dist. Deoghar … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.

¶9

05/04.11.2025 Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶10

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 by which the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Deoghar. The prayer is also made to set-aside the judgment dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Deoghar arising out of Rikhiya P.S. Case No.160/2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1319/2021, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to acquit the accused person/opposite party no.2 for the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

-1-

¶12

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2025

¶13

( 2025:JHHC:33013 )

¶14

3. The petitioner/informant instituted the FIR being Rikhiya P.S. Case No.160/2020 against the unknown person for the offence under Sections 380, 411 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that he had gone to Munger for Chhath Puja and he got information in the morning of 20.11.2020 that someone has committed theft in his house in the night of 19.11.2020. The petitioner used to live as a tenant in the house of Harish Prasad Singh. When the petitioner reached his house, he saw that someone has broken the lock of his house and almirah, which was kept inside the room and has stolen various articles like ornaments, earrings (five pair), rings (five pieces), gold necklace (two pieces), gold chain (two pieces), gold bangles (two pair), mangalsutra, one nose ring, one maang tikka, bracelet, two lockets, which amounted to a total of Rs.8,10,000/- and cash worth Rs.3,75,000/-.

¶15

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts have not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in right perspective and have acquitted the accused/opposite party no.2, namely, Ram Pravesh Mandal. He further submits that Rs.3,000/- in cash and one mobile set was recovered from the possession of opposite party no.2 and seizure list was prepared. According to him, since the mobile was recovered from possession of opposite party no.2 and SIM card was removed from that mobile and in view of that, prima facie, Ram Pravesh Mandal is responsible for the theft and that aspect has not been appreciated by both the learned Courts. On these grounds, he submits that this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed.

¶16

-2-

¶17

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2025

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:33013 )

¶19

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that both the learned Courts have given cogent reason and they have discussed each and every material on the record including the oral and documentary evidence and, thereafter, passed the orders. He further submits that only Rs.3,000/- has been recovered and it cannot be said that the said Rs.3,000/- is of the petitioner herein. He then submits that the allegation is also not there in the FIR of theft of the mobile and in that view of the matter, he submits that both the learned Courts have rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the order.

¶20

6. In view of the above, the only point has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is recovery of Rs.3,000/- and seizure list was prepared and mobile was recovered from the possession of Ram Pravesh Mandal. The learned trial Court has found that it is not clear that the said Rs.3,000/- and mobile set is of the petitioner. The learned trial Court has further appreciated the testimony of the informant/petitioner who has stated that the ornaments like earrings, rings, gold necklace, gold chain, gold bangles, mangalsutra, nose ring, maang tikka, bracelet and lockets were stolen and considering all the materials available on record, the learned Court has acquitted the accused/opposite party no.2. The learned trial Court has appreciated each and every oral evidence of all the witnesses as well as documentary evidence and, thereafter, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 13.02.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2024. The learned appellate Court has further appreciated the entire record and has also found that the allegation of stealing of the mobile is not there in the FIR and in that view of the matter, the learned appellate Court

¶21

-3-

¶22

Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2025

¶23

( 2025:JHHC:33013 )

¶24

has affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court.

¶25

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality

¶26