Dismissed¶52

Pushpa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2026Acq. App./7/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC Ranchi | Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 07 of 2015 | Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:9922-DB | decided 01.04.2026 | Rongon Mukhopadhyay & Pradeep Kumar Srivastava | appeal against acquittal dismissed | murder of Randhir Mishra, S. 302 IPC (initial FIR u/s 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 354/34 IPC) | accused Amitesh Jha acquitted by Judicial Commissioner-IV Ranchi, Sessions Trial No. 52/2014, Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013, G.R. No. 4035/2013 | keywords: circumstantial evidence, no eye-witness, informant not eye-witness, witness contradictions, I.O. deposition, FIR delay, date of occurrence not established, business rivalry, postmortem head injury.

What did the court decide?

There are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. ¶50

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of respondent no. 2 recorded by the learned trial court ought to be interfered with (appeal against acquittal). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

After considering all aspects and the evidence on record, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned acquittal judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/2014 and consequently dismisses the appeal.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

There are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence.

¶50

Key takeaways

Though the informant (P.W.5) named respondent no. 2 as the main assailant, in her evidence she stated she was staying at her parental home for the last 2-3 months prior to the occurrence and is not an eye-witness.ratio¶50
Witness contradictions defeat the claim of the accused's presence: P.W.1 (related to P.W.2) did not corroborate P.W.2's account, and as per P.W.6 (I.O.), P.W.2 had never disclosed before him that respondent no. 2 and three other persons had assaulted the deceased and brought him to her house.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 07 of 2015 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; decided 01.04.2026; per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J., with Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) dismissed: the Division Bench upheld the acquittal of respondent no. 2 (Amitesh Jha) recorded on 18.02.2015 by the Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 52/2014 (arising out of Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013, G.R. No. 4035/2013) for the murder (S. 302 IPC, added on 31.08.2013 to an FIR initially u/s 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 354/34 IPC) of Randhir Mishra. With no eye-witnesses, the prosecution case hinged wholly on circumstantial evidence, which the Bench found insufficient: the informant (P.W.5) conceded she was not an eye-witness; P.W.1 did not corroborate P.W.2's account of the accused's presence; the investigating officer (P.W.6) deposed that P.W.2 had never disclosed that respondent no. 2 and three others assaulted the deceased; there was delay in lodging the FIR and the date of occurrence was not established; and respondent no. 2 appeared implicated only through business rivalry, the earlier alleged assault and threat being unsupported by any complaint anywhere. Appeal dismissed; acquittal stands.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:9922-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (D.B.) No. 07 of 2015

¶3

Pushpa Devi, W/o Late Randhir Mishra, Permanent R/o Village- Rupolia Khurd, Post- Panchpakdi Bazar, P.S.Dhaka, District- East Champaran (Bihar) ... … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. State of Jharkhand

¶6

2. Amitesh Jha, S/o Sri Pramod Jha, Permanent R/o Village- Basantpur, Post- Basantpur, P.S.- Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar) Presently at C/o Ganga Prasad Mahto, Tikli Tola, Behind Reliance Mart, Kanke Road, Post- GPO, P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi ... … Respondents

¶7

---------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Chouhan, Adv. For the Resp.-State : A.P.P. For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Adv.

¶10

Order No. 13/Dated, the 1^st April, 2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

¶11

Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. as well as Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

¶12

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/2014, arising out of Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4035/2013, by Sri Krishna Kumar, learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 herein has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶13

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Pushpa Devi (appellant), in which, it has been stated that on 22.07.2013 some persons had brutally assaulted her husband as a result of which he had received

¶14

grievous injuries. The respondent no. 2 and his driver have been named as the main assailants.

¶15

Based on the aforesaid allegations Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013 was instituted u/s 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 354/34 of the IPC. Subsequently vide order dated 31.08.2013 Section 302 of the IPC had been added. 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 Sessions Trial No. 52/2014. Charge was framed against the respondent no. 2 u/s 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶16

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.

¶17

5. P.W.1 (Narendra Jha) is the brother-in-law of the deceased Randhir Mishra. He has stated that on 22.07.2013 in the morning when his daughter had opened the door, he had found Randhir Mishra in an injured state who was lying unconscious. He has stated that on 14.07.2013 the accused person along with his three accomplices had came to his house at 5:00 P.M. and made inquiry about Randhir Mishra and he had disclosed that Randhir Mishra had gone to his uncle’s place. The accused had issued a threat that Randhir Mishra will suffer bodily injury if the due amount is not returned to him. Both Randhir Mishra and the accused had a previous dispute. He has identified his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

¶18

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the deceased was a drunkard and because of which he sometime used to return home late at night. He had stated

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

before the Police that Randhir Mishra did not disclose about the incident despite being asked several times.

¶21

6. P.W.2 (Munnu Devi) has stated that the incident is of 22.07.2013 when four persons had committed assault upon a person and kept him in front of her door. When she opened the door, she found Randhir Mishra in an injured condition and she could identify Amitesh Jha as one of the persons present. Randhir Mishra was her brother. She had brought Randhir Mishra inside the house and massaged him with hot oil and in the morning admitted him in RIMS. In course of treatment Randhir Mishra died.

¶22

In cross-examination, she has deposed that when her brother did not return, she had called him on his mobile but he was not in a position to speak. Her brother was later on brought to her house. The wife of Randhir Mishra had gone to her parental house one month prior to the incident.

¶23

7. P.W.3 (Pramila Devi) has stated that she was in her house at Muzaffarpur and she came to know from the mother of the accused that there has been a fight between Randhir Mishra and the accused. She had come to the Hospital at Ranchi along with the mother of the accused and she had found signs of violence on the entire body of Randhir Mishra. After five days Randhir Mishra died.

¶24

In cross-examination, she has deposed that Pushpa Devi is her daughter. Her statement was not recorded by the Police. She had not seen the incident.

¶25

8. P.W.4 (Janak Prasad) has stated that he knows both the deceased and the accused and both used to supply goods in his shop. Both are related to each other.

¶26

In cross-examination, he has denied of having any knowledge about the incident.

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

9. P.W.5 (Pushpa Devi) is the wife of the deceased and the informant who has stated that earlier also an incident of assault had taken place. When her brother-inlaw (P.W.1) informed her that Amitesh had left her husband at home in an injured condition she had immediately come back to Muzaffarpur and thereafter she, her mother, Pramod Jha and the wife of Pramod Jha had come to RIMS where she had seen her husband in a bad state. She has identified her signature on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

¶29

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she was staying at her parental house 2-3 months prior to the occurrence. The Police was never informed about the incident which took place earlier. She had not witnessed the incident.

¶30

10. P.W.6 (Albinus Tigga) was posted at Pandra O.P. and on 25.07.2013 he had registered Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013. He has proved the endorsement and the forwarding in the written reports which have been marked as Exhibits- 3 and 4 respectively. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. After taking over the investigation he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statements of other witnesses. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at a distance of hundred yards from Bank of India in the alley in front of the house of the informant. He had visited RIMS but Randhir Mishra was unconscious. On 28.07.2013 Randhir Mishra died and an inquest report was prepared. The Inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. He had obtained the postmortem report and on completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet.

¶31

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not recorded the statement of the persons residing

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

near to the place of occurrence. Munnu Devi in her statement had not disclosed that on 22.07.2013 four persons had assaulted Randhir Mishra and brought him to his house and she had seen Amitesh Jha standing. Munnu Devi had disclosed that Randhir Mishra was not happy with his marriage due to which he consumed liquor and many a times Randhir Mishra was brought home when he was found lying on the road in a fully drunken condition. He has stated that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Nobody had disclosed that on 22^nd the deceased was seen with the accused.

¶34

11. P.W.7 (Dr. Nityanand Kumar) had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Randhir Mishra and had found the following injuries on his person:

¶35

(I) Abrasion with scalp:- a) 3 x 2 cm over upper part of frontal head. b) 1x ½ cm over left eyebrow. c) 3 x 3 cm over left scapula d) 1x ½ cm over left side of nose e) 6 x 2 cm over lateral side of left elbow. (II) Bruise:- a) 10 x 5 cm over lateral side middle part of right arm. b) 5 x 1 cm over middle part back of right forearm. c) 5 x 1 cm and 5 x 1 cm over lateral side of left thigh. (III) The following internal injuries were found:- a) Contusion under the scalp over the right frontal and both temporal and parietal region. b) Crack fracture 17 cm over the right temporo parietal bone. c) Extra dural hematoma 7 x 6 x ½ cm in the right temporo parietal region. d) Subdural hematoma was present in both the sides of the brain. e) Both lungs were congested. f) Left chamber of heart was empty and

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

right was full.

¶38

g) Stomach contained billions fluid 150 cc. h) All other internal organs were congested.

¶39

It was opined that the cause of death was due to head injury. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.

¶40

12. P.W.8 (Punam Minz) has stated that on 22.07.2013 Ramadhar Singh had come to her Canteen and had stated that Randhir Mishra has supplied Burger till that day and he does not know as to whether he will be able to supply Burger on the following day or not. He had also stated that Randhir Mishra had a meeting with his competitor Amitesh Jha.

¶41

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not have any knowledge about the incident.

¶42

13. P.W.9 (Ritesh Khanna) has stated that the accused had once come to him and after 2-3 days from the said date he came to know that Randhir Mishra has died. He does not have any knowledge about the incident.

¶43

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know as to how, when and by what means Randhir Mishra had expired.

¶44

14. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the murder.

¶45

15. It has been submitted by Mr. Deepak Kumar Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant / informant that despite there being strong circumstances connecting the respondent no. 2 to the murder of Randhir Mishra but the learned trial court had committed an error in acquitting respondent no. 2. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly revealed the presence of the respondent no. 2 with the deceased when the deceased was brought home in an

¶46

Page 6 of 8

¶47

injured condition. There was a business rivalry between the deceased and the respondent no. 2 and earlier also an act of assault and threat was meted out to the deceased. The motive having been sufficiently established and the instances being palpable on the face of it the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside.

¶48

16. Mr. Awanish Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 / accused has pointed out that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses specially P.W.1 and P.W.2 which extinguishes the allegations regarding the presence of respondent no. 2 with the deceased on the fateful night. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence being too weak the learned trial court had rightly passed the judgment of acquittal.

¶49

17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.

¶50

18. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Though the informant (P.W.5) has named the respondent no. 2 as the main assailant but in her evidence she has stated she was staying at her parental home for the last 2-3 months prior to the occurrence and she is not an eye-witness. P.W.2 has stated about the presence of the respondent no. 2 when the deceased was brought in an injured condition but P.W.1 who is related to P.W.2 has not stated so. Moreover, as per P.W.6 (I.O.), P.W.2 had never disclosed before him that the respondent no. 2 and three other persons had assaulted the deceased and brought him to her house. Apart from the fact that the involvement of the respondent no. 2 having not been ascertained by the prosecution so far as the

¶51

Page 7 of 8

¶52

murder of Randhir Mishra is concerned it also appears that there has been a delay in lodging of the First Information Report and the prosecution has also failed to establish the date of occurrence. The respondent no. 2 appears to have been implicated because of a business rivalry with the deceased and the purported assault and threat given to the deceased earlier though no complaint was made anywhere regarding such incident. 19. The learned trial court has considered and analyzed all aspects of the case in its proper perspective and after giving our thoughtful consideration to the evidences on record, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/2014, arising out of Kotwali (P) P.S. Case No. 667/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4035/2013, by Sri Krishna Kumar, learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi and consequently we dismiss this appeal.

¶53

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶54

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶55

Dated, the 1^st April, 2026 A. Sanga/Uploaded on 08 / 04 /2026

¶56

Page 8 of 8

Pushpa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Bediya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Soma Tarkot Vs the State of Jharkhand

Robbin Sarwan Soborano Vs State of Jharkhand

Renu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

MD Firoz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manjari Shrivastava Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Bediya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Soma Tarkot Vs the State of Jharkhand

Robbin Sarwan  Soborano Vs State of Jharkhand

Renu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

MD Firoz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manjari Shrivastava Vs State of Jharkhand

Robbin Sarwan Soborano Vs State of Jharkhand