Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sachin Mahto, Advocate -----------

¶20

16/Dated: 06^th April, 2026

¶21

It appears from the order dated 27.02.2025 that opposite party No.7 has already died during pendency of this revision application and this criminal revision has already been abated so far as opposite party No.7 is concerned. Another affidavit filed by learned counsel for the State and opposite parties with regard to life status of O.P. Nos.3 and 4 reveals that O.P. No.3, Parwati Devi has already been died three years

¶22

1

¶23

Cr. Rev. No.750 of 2017

¶24

2026:JHHC:9720

¶25

ago and O.P. No.4-Gayatri Devi is alive but it was informed that her correct name is Savitri Devi not Gayatri Devi, which was confirmed by her AADHAR Card.

¶26

Considering the above, this criminal revision, therefore, stands abated so far as appellant No.3 is concerned and the name of O.P. No.4 is modified to the extent that instead of “ Gayatri Devi ”, henceforth, it may be read as “ Savitri Devi ”. Accordingly, the names of surviving opposite parties, Surendra Ram S/o-Late Permeshwar Ram, Savitri Devi W/o-Late Narayan Ram, Sahdeo Yadav, S/o-Late Gajo Yadav, Lakshman Yadav, S/o-Sri Jhari Yadav, SibuBalwant, S/o-Munna Balwant, Gobind Yadav S/o-Bishun Yadav, Nageshwar Mehta have been renumbered and the criminal revision is heard on behalf of the aforesaid alive opposite parties.

¶27

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl.P.P. assisted by Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶28

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 18.04.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Cr. Appeal No.38 of 2015, whereby and whereunder learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 21.07.2015 passed in C. Case No.327 of 2007 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, whereby and whereunder learned trial court has acquitted the

¶29

2

¶30

Cr. Rev. No.750 of 2017

¶31

2026:JHHC:9720

¶32

accused/opposite party Nos.2 to 8 for the offences charged under sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.

¶33

Factual Matrix:-

¶34

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the petitioner has filed a complaint case No.327 of 2007 stating inter alia that the ancestors of complainant had purchased a land by registered Sale Deed No.441 on 09.01.1968 from the ancestors of accused No.1 and relatives of accused Nos.2-4. It is further alleged that the ancestors of complainant Hari Ram also purchased a land by registered Sale Deed No.10710 on 08.07.1969 from the said accused and paid full consideration amount, gaining the possession over the vended land and doing cultivation on the said agricultural land. The alleged accused persons through a Power of attorney sold the said land to different purchasers by registered Sale Deed Nos.3679 and 3680 on 06.07.2006 without any title and possession. That the accused persons fraudulently prepared the void sale deed to oust the complainant from the land and transacted the money. Hence, the complainant made a written report to the concerned police station on 30.05.2007.

¶35

Submission on behalf of petitioner

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that both the courts below have committed serious error of law of the case of the complainant. Learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that there was clear cut

¶37

3

¶38

Cr. Rev. No.750 of 2017

¶39

2026:JHHC:9720

¶40

admission of the accused persons about entry in the record of rights in the name of Nehal Singh @ Nehal Ram and Bandhan Singh @ BandhanRam, therefore, subsequent sale deeds are void ab initio in the eye of law. It is further submitted that Nehal Singh @ Nehal Ram and Bandhan Singh @ Bandhan Ram are same person and being legal heirs, the accused persons have fraudulently sold the land, which was already sold by their ancestors. Learned court below has not applied its judicial mind towards fraudulent transfer of the land made by the accused persons causing serious prejudice to the complainant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal are fit to be set aside.

¶41

Submission on behalf of State

¶42

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there are concurrent findings of the courts below that no offence as alleged was constituted on the basis of averments made in the complainant as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant. The revisional power under Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such power, the High Court has no authority to re-appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Therefore, this criminal revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶43

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶44

I have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that there are concurrent findings of the learned trial

¶45

4

¶46

Cr. Rev. No.750 of 2017

¶47

2026:JHHC:9720

¶48

court as well as learned appellate court that the grandfather of the complainant, Hari Ram had purchased the disputed land from Nehal Singh and Bandhan Singh, who were belonging to Rajpoot community. The certified copy of the sale deed executed by O.P. No.2, SurendraRam in favour of other co-accused indicates that he had executed the sale-deed on the basis of power of attorney executed by Parwati Devi, Gayatri Devi and another Parwati Devi, who are apparently not legal heirs of the vendor and the father of the complainant and they have no concern with these vendors, namely Nehal Singh and Bandhan Singh.

¶49

Considering the above, both learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have arrived at clear cut findings that none of the charges against them have been proved beyond doubt and acquitted the accused persons. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by taking any different view in the matter. Therefore, this criminal revision is

¶50

dismissed .

¶51