Bisheshwar Gour Alias Bisheswar Gour Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:10787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

[Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2022]

¶4

Bisheshwar Gour @ Bisheswar Gour, aged about 65 years, son of Late Purno Chandra Gour, resident of Road No.1, Sonkosai, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. - Ulidih, P.S. - Mango, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum.

¶5

….. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Dashrath Kauntia, son of Late Satya Narayan Kauntia, resident of Discovery Diagnostics, Telephone Exchange Road, New Baradwari, P.O. - Sakchi, P.S. - Sitaramdera, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum.

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. S. L. Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate ---------

¶12

Order No.06/ Dated: 16th April, 2026

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P and Mr. S. L. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶14

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant/ appellant against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.09.2022, passed

¶15

- 1 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

¶16

2026:JHHC:10787

¶17

by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.69 of 2013 (TR No.07 of 2022), has been set aside so far as respondent No.02, namely, Dasrath Kauntia is concerned and accordingly he has been acquitted and discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Although co-accused namely, Bharat Gope, has been convicted.

¶18

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint case being Complaint Case No.69 of 2013 by the appellant-complainant against four accused persons namely, Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased), Bharat Gope and Dashrath Kauntia, the present respondent No.2.

¶19

4. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the complaint, is that on 28.10.2012, all the four above named persons along with others came to the disputed land and started removing bushes & other materials. The complainant party tried to stop them but they started abusing. Dashrath Kauntia told that he had purchased the said land from Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) & Bharat Gope. The complainant came to know that the Sale Deed No.2530/2184/2009 dated 28.03.2009 for land situated in Plot Nos.5821 & 5822, New Plot No.2159, Khata No 431 (Old Khata No. 548), admeasuring Area 69.72 Decimal (0.69.72 acres) has been executed by Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) & Bharat Gope in favour of Shushil Kumar Singh and

¶20

- 2 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

¶21

2026:JHHC:10787

¶22

Shrikant Singh. He also came to know that a General Power of Attorney bearing Registration No.3512/702/2012 dated 06.06.2012 for land situated at Khata No.226, Plot No.2159/4387, Area measuring 19.80 Decimal, 0.07.70 Hectare, 12 Kathas, was executed by Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) & Bharat Gope in favour of Dashrath Kauntia. It is also stated that vide judgment dated 24.02.1990 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 24/5 of 1985-88, Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) & Bharat Gope were entitled to 72.0 Decimal land i.e., in Plot No.5821 area 0.24 Decimal & Plot No.5822 area 0.48 Decimal. But, they had executed both the documents including 17.52 Decimals (0.17.52 acres) Excess land without legal rights and with ulterior motive and wrongful gain. It further alleged that after the death of his father, the complainant has been in possession of the said land since 28.10.2012 and the accused persons were trying to dispossess him illegally.

¶23

After conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.07.2013, learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur found sufficient ground to proceed under Section 420 IPC against all the accused persons as mentioned in the Complaint Petition. Accordingly, summon was issued. After appearance of the accused persons, the evidence before charge as per Section 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Vide order dated 13.10.2015 charge under Section 420 IPC was

¶24

- 3 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

¶25

2026:JHHC:10787

¶26

framed against the accused persons.

¶27

To substantiate the prosecution story, only the complainant has been examined and certain documents have been proved.

¶28

On the basis of evidence on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 03.09.2022 has found the accused persons including the respondent No.2 guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each with default stipulation of imprisonment for two months.

¶29

5. Being aggrieved by the trial court judgment, the respondent No.2 namely, Dashrath Kauntia and another accused namely, Bharat Gope have preferred Criminal Appeals being Cr. Appeal Nos.162 of 2022 & 153 of 2022, respectively, in the appellate court i.e., in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Jamshedpur and vide judgment dated 27.05.2024, the appellate court has acquitted the respondent No.02 namely, Dashrath Kauntia whereas the conviction of the accused namely, Bharat Gope has been sustained.

¶30

6. The appellate court, while acquitting the respondent No.2, has assigned the reason that there is no mental element i.e. mens rea / knowledge for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as under :-

¶31

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything

¶32

- 4 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

¶33

2026:JHHC:10787

¶34

which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶35

The basic ingredients of Section 420 IPC is dishonestly induce or deceive any person.

¶36

7. The appellate court, on evaluation of evidence, has recorded the finding that there was a civil dispute between the parties and the respondent No.2 was not a party to the dispute, rather the appellant-complainant was a party to the civil dispute. Thus, there is no evidence on record at all, suggesting that the respondent No.2 has any knowledge, regarding the status of the land. He has merely acted on the basis of power of attorney assigned to him. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent No.2 has acted dishonestly and as such the appellate court has passed the order of acquittal.

¶37

8. This Court has also gone through the evidence available on record, and could not find any material, suggesting that the respondent No.2 has the knowledge, regarding the status of the land.

¶38

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant could not point out any such evidence with respect to the knowledge of the respondent No.2 and in the absence of any such evidence, nobody can be punished.

¶39

10. Thus, this Court finds that the judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2022, in favour of the present respondent No.2 namely,

¶40

- 5 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

¶41

2026:JHHC:10787

¶42

Dashrath Kauntia, requires no interference.

¶43

11. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

¶44

12 . Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

¶45

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶46

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 16^th April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan /- NAFR Uploaded on 18.04.2026

¶47

- 6 - Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024

Bisheshwar Gour Alias Bisheswar Gour v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisheshwar Gour Alias Bisheswar Gour v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Shobhan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indian Overseas Bank Represented through Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Angana Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devnandan Alias Devnandan Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nageshwar Pandit N. Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indian Overseas Bank Represented through Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Angana Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devnandan Alias Devnandan Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rameshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nageshwar Pandit  N. Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nageshwar Pandit N. Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.