Sarjit Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

2026:JHHC:9730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009

[ Against the judgment of acquittal dated 07^th February, 2001 passed by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 1995 ]

¶4

¶5

Sarjit Kaur wife of late Amar Singh, resident of Barhi, P.O.+P.S.- Barhi, District – Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Deleted

¶9

Kishori Singh @ Kishori Ram son of Jagarnath Singh

¶10

Rambriksh Singh son of Jagarnath Singh

¶11

Mahendra Singh son of Jagarnath Singh

¶12

Amanat Hussain son of late Lato Khan

¶13

All resident of Barhi, P.S. – Barhi, District – Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶14

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶15

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶18

---For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. For the Private Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. ----

¶19

By Court:

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant(s), Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, & Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.

¶21

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 1995 dated 07.02.2001 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has set aside the judgment of the conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No.329 of 1991 dated 27.04.1995 whereby and whereunder the Respondent Nos.3-6/accused persons of the case were held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section

¶22

2026:JHHC:9730

¶23

323 of the IPC, for one year under Section 452 IPC and for two years under Section 380 IPC.

¶24

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/appellant filed a complaint on 30.08.1991 alleging that on 30.06.1991 at about 11:00 A.M., while she was present at the place of occurrence along with her minor sons, namely Jagbindra Singh and Sukhbindra Singh, all the accused persons, along with 10 others, arrived there and forcibly entered her hotel. It is alleged that they began removing utensils worth Rs. 2,000/-, four re-soled truck tyres worth Rs. 25,000/-, a steel box containing cash of Rs. 2,500/-, garments worth Rs. 2,000/-, and wood and bamboo worth Rs. 2,500/- kept for repair purposes. Upon protest by the complainant, the accused persons allegedly assaulted her and her sons with fists. On hearing the alarm, several witnesses and local residents gathered at the place of occurrence, witnessed the incident, and protested against the unlawful acts, whereupon the accused persons fled away with the aforesaid articles, causing substantial loss to the complainant. It is further stated that although the complainant reported the matter to the police, no action was taken, compelling her to file the present complaint before the court.

¶25

4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint being Complaint Case No.329 of 1991. On the basis of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and, upon examination of other witnesses, the learned court below was pleased to take cognizance against the accused persons under Sections 323, 452 and 380 of the I.P.C.

¶26

5. To substantiate the charges against the respondents, the complainant had examined altogether eleven witnesses.C.W.1 Sukar Yadav, C.W.2 Karim Mian, C.W.3 is Md. Shakoor, C.W.4 is Kudus Ansari, C.W.5 is Tilak Singh, C.W.6 is Sarabjeet Kaur (complainant), C.W.7 is Arjun Singh, C.W.8 is Mahadev Yadav, C.W.9 is Chandar Korba, C.W.10 is Md. Hasim and C.W.11 is Akshay Kumar Bakshi. It appears that C.W.7 to 11 are formal witnesses and they proved some documentary evidence.

¶27

6. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider the evidence of C.W.-6, Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur (the complainant). According to her, Kishori and

¶28

Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009

¶29

Page | 2

¶30

2026:JHHC:9730

¶31

Mahendra assaulted her, and her two sons were assaulted by Ram Briksh Singh and Amanat Hussain. The complaint petition has been duly examined by the complainant.

¶32

7. C.W.-2 has nowhere stated anything regarding any assault, and C.W.3 has deposed only with respect to the assault on the two sons of Sarabjeet Kaur. The other C.Ws. have not stated anything regarding any assault either upon the complainant or her two sons.

¶33

8. Thereafter, the learned trial court, upon hearing the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, convicted the accused persons under the aforesaid sections vide judgment dated 27.04.1995 passed in Complaint Case No. 329 of 1991 (T.R. No. 63 of 1995).

¶34

9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.04.1995, the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1995, wherein the appellate court, upon re-evaluation of the evidence, found the case to be surrounded by doubt and, accordingly, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused persons; as a result, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.04.1995 was set aside, and the accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 07.02.2001.

¶35

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal on the following grounds:

¶36

(i) There was sufficient evidence on record which has been wrongly negated;

¶37

(ii) Non-examination of two injured victims could not be a ground for acquittal;

¶38

(iii) There are other witnesses also to suggest that the theft has been committed and the victim has also been assaulted and as such the judgment of conviction by the trial court was correct and reversal of it by the appellate court is bad in law.

¶39

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Respondent No.3-6 have supported the judgment of acquittal and it has been submitted that:

¶40

Page | 3

¶41

Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009

¶42

2026:JHHC:9730

¶43

(i) The complaint petition was lodged after a delay of two months from the date of occurrence;

¶44

(ii) The only explanation has been given that they have been assured by the police regarding the recovery of the stolen article.

¶45

(iii) Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the case would amount to dacoity and not theft;

¶46

(iv) The independent witnesses have not been examined.

¶47

(v) No enquiry has been conducted regarding the place of occurrence and even the factum of theft has not been proved;

¶48

(vi) Although there is allegation of injury and treatment but no injury report has been brought on record;

¶49

(vii) The evidence has been closely scrutinized by the appellate court which has rightly found that the case is surrounded by substantial doubt.

¶50

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it appears that:

¶51

(a) The complaint petition was lodged after a delay of two months from the date of occurrence and the delay has not been explained property;

¶52

(b) The important witnesses like two sons of the complainant and independent witnesses have not been examined;

¶53

(c) There is inconsistency in the evidences of all the important witnesses;

¶54

(d) No injury report has been brought on record;

¶55

(e) No proper enquiry has been conducted regarding the place of occurrence;

¶56

Page | 4

¶57

Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009

¶58

2026:JHHC:9730

¶59

(f) The evidence has also been closely scrutinized by the appellate court and it has rightly been found that there is sufficient area of doubt.

¶60

13. In view of the materials discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, vide judgment dated 07.02.2001.

¶61

14. Accordingly, this acquittal being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

¶62

15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶63

16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this judgment.

¶64

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶65

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 07^th April, 2026 Amar/NAFR Uploaded on 09.04.2026

¶66

Page | 5