Dismissed¶26

Etwari Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Aug 2025Cr.A(SJ)/394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.394 of 2024; decided 04.08.2025 by Sanjay Prasad, J. Challenge to cognizance order under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act s.3(1) and IPC ss.147/148/149/323/341/447/354B/504/506 arising from Jamua P.S. Case No. 47/20, Giridih; plea of no eye witness / occurrence not in public view rejected — occurrence on informant's land held to be in public view; Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 and Md. Murtaza (Cr.M.P No.1855 of 2017) distinguished; criminal appeal against cognizance dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 394 of 2024 was dismissed, leaving the cognizance order dated 13.12.2021 intact. ¶26

Etwari Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:22390

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.394 of 2024

¶3

….

¶4

Etwari Mahto @ Atawari Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Darsu Mahto, R/o Village- Karodih, P.S.-Jamua, P.O.-Berhabad, Dist.-Giridih ……Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Karu Turi, aged about 36 years, S/o Chutari Turi @ Prasadi Turi R/o village- Karodih, P.S.- Jamua, P.O. Berabad, Dist.Giridih ……Respondents

¶8

-----

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶10

----- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : None …… Order No.09/04.08.2025

¶11

This Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.394 of 2024 has been filed by challenging the order taking cognizance dated 13.12.2021 against the appellant for the offences under Sections 147/149/341/447/504/506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s)(w) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 47/20 for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/341/447/354B/504/506 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(e)(f)(g)(h)(s) of SC/ST Act.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, none appears on behalf of the Respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant had purchased the land from the father of the Informant in the year 2003 through registered sale

¶13

¶14

2025:JHHC:22390

¶15

deed. However, the informant has lodged the complaint case in the year 2020 and the said case was sent for Police investigation. Thereafter, a FIR was lodged by the police giving rise to the Jamua P.S. Case No. 47/20 under Sections 147/148/149/323 /341/447/354B/504/506 of I.P.C. It is submitted that earlier proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C was also instituted vide Case No. 174 of 2019 against the appellant and other accused persons. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the occurrence had not taken place in the public view and hence, no offence under the provision of ST/ST Act is made out. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Judgment rendered in the case of Md. Murtaza and Other versus State of Jharkhand and others passed in Cr.M.P No.1855 of 2017 dated 08.09.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi) of this Court and also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and submitted that in view of the above the cognizance order dated 13.12.2021 may be set aside.

¶16

None appears on behalf of the State on repeated calls. 5. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It appears that the notice was issued upon the complainant vide order dated 28.02.2025 but the complainant has not appeared.

¶17

From perusal of the FIR arising out of the complainant case no. 06/2020, it reveals that the appellant and several others are alleged to have arrived at the land of the complainantinformant on the date of occurrence i.e. on 14.01.2020 at 07:30 AM in the morning and they came upon her land of Khata

¶18

¶19

2025:JHHC:22390

¶20

No. 61, Plot No. 621/2, Area- 68 Decimals and they are alleged to have abused the complainant and her daughter in law, Bhabhi and mother. It is further alleged that the appellant had opened the saree of ladies and tore the blouse of the ladies side of the complainant.

¶21

It also appears that the police has submitted chargesheet against the appellant and thereafter, the learned Court below had taken cognizance against the appellant on 13.12.2021 for the offences under Sections 147/148149/341/447/504/506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s)(w) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶22

It appears that the cognizance was taken on 13.12.2021 and more than three and half years have passed.

¶23

It appears that the occurrence appears to have taken place at the land of the informant which is a public place and the complaint had described the name of several persons as the witnesses in his complaint.

¶24

Thus, the occurrence appears to have taken place in public view.

¶25

However, the Judgment rendered in the case of Md. Murtaza and Other versus State of Jharkhand and others passed in Cr.M.P No.1855 of 2017 dated 08.09.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi) and also the judgment rendered in the case of Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 are not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.

¶26

Thus, there is no merit in this Criminal Appeal. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 394 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶27

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶28

Nishant/-

¶29

Etwari Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Etwari Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tata Steel Ltd. Thr. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Head-Hrm (Legal and Rehabilitation) Tata Steel Ltd. Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Employment, Training N Skill Development

MD Sharifuddin Ansari Alias Sharifuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nisar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Nath Gupta Alias Ram Nath Sah Vs State of Jharkhand