Mahavir Yadav  Mahavir Gope And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:17080

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 768 of 2009

[Against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2009 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Bokaro in Spl. SC/ST G.R. Case No.81 of 1999,]

¶5

---------

¶6

Mahavir Yadav @ Mahavir Gope, Son of Kisun Yadav @ Kishun Gope

¶7

Mohan Yadav @ Mohan Gope, son of Jagdish Gope

¶8

Shankar Gope, Son of Diplal Gope

¶9

Jagan Gope @ Jagan Yadav, Son of Kamal Gope

¶10

Rohit Yadav @ Rohit Gope, Son of Nakul Gope

¶11

Birchand Gope @ Birchand Yadav, Son of Juthan Gope

¶12

Jitendra Gope @ Jitendra Yadav, son of Sugan Gope

¶13

All residents of Jhirkey, P.S.-Gomia, Dist.-Bokaro

¶14

……Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand

¶17

…. Respondent

¶18

---------- For the Appellant : Ms. Manjulika Horo, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

¶19

---------

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT

¶22

CAV On 15^th May, 2026 Pronounced On 12/06/ 2026

¶23

Heard Ms. Manjulika Horo, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P.

¶24

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2009 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Bokaro in Spl. SC/ST G.R. Case No.81 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 147,

¶25

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶26

2026:JHHC:17080

¶27

148, 323/34 and 379/34 of IPC and section 3 (I)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence under section 148 of IPC, R.I. for 6 months each for the offence under section 323/34 of IPC, R.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 379/34 of IPC and R.I. for 4 years for the offence under sections 3(I)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with a fine of Rs.1,000 with default stipulation. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶28

Factual Matrix:-

¶29

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant, Ajay Ravidas (P.W.4) presented a written report (Ext.1) before Gomia Police Station stating inter alia that on 30.01.1999 at about 11:00 am, the informant was taking bath in a pond situated in his village, meanwhile, all the above named accused persons belonging to Yadav Community armed with lathi, danda, farsa and tangi arrived there and started assaulting the informant saying that the said pond belongs to them, therefore, they will not allow ‘ Harijan’ to take bath. Accordingly, all the accused persons assaulted to the informant causing injuries on his person and also committed theft of his HMT, Chirag wrist watch worth Rs.750/- as well as his shirt and trousers. It is further alleged that at the time of occurrence, Shamsul Hoda (P.W.1), Kailash Ravidas (P.W.2), Md. Riyazuddin (P.W.3) and Jagdev Ravidas were also present, who

¶30

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶31

2

¶32

2026:JHHC:17080

¶33

lifted the informant and brought to his home. Thereafter, the informant along with his father went to Kathara O.P. and submitted his written report. The reason behind the occurrence as alleged in the written report is that all the villagers of the different castes were taking bath in the said pond, therefore, the informant had also gone to take bath but he was assaulted at the hands of the accused persons.

¶34

The above written report was forwarded by In-charge, Kathara O.P. to Gomia Police Station. Accordingly, Gomia P.S. Case No.15 of 1999 was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of SC/ST Act. The investigation was conducted by SDPO, Bermo at Tenughat and his successor and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, the case was transferred to the Special Court SC/ST Act. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.

¶35

In the course of trial, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:-

¶36

P.W.1 -Shamsul Hoda

¶37

P.W.2- Kailash Ravidas

¶38

P.W.3 -Md. Riyazuddin

¶39

P.W.4 -Ajay Ravidas (informant-cum-injured)

¶40

P.W.5- Dr. Mahadeo Prasad

¶41

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶42

3

¶43

2026:JHHC:17080

¶44

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution.

¶45

Ext.1.- written report of complainant

¶46

Ext.2 and 2/1- Injury report of the informant

¶47

On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence. However, two documentary evidence have been adduced, i.e.

¶48

Ext.A- Certified copy of Gomia P.S. Case No.16 of 1999 dated 30.01.1999 lodged by Jitendra Yadav (appellant No.7) against the informant of this case.

¶49

Ext.B- Certified copy of the order dated 27.02.1999 passed in Gomia P.S. Case No.15 of 1999.

¶50

The case of accused persons is totally denial from the occurrence and pleaded his innocence and false implication. Further plea of defence is that on that very day, the informant of this case along with four other boys of his caste were taking bath at ladies ghaat and on that very pond where wife of the elder brother of the accused. Jitendra Gope was also taking bath and when he raised objection, then, all of them assaulted him and with a view to save their skin from their own wrong doings, this false case has been instituted against all the accused persons.

¶51

Learned trial court after scrutinizing overall evidence available on record recorded the findings of guilt of the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them.

¶52

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶53

4

¶54

2026:JHHC:17080

¶55

Submission on behalf of appellants:-

¶56

10.Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the defence has seriously prejudiced in their defence in eliciting the material facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that no offence under SC/ST Act much less offence under section 3(I)(V) of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants because no insulting or humiliating words were used against the informant in the name of his caste. Admittedly, the informant has taken bath in the pond, thereafter, the alleged occurrence is said to have happened. Therefore, the appellants never forbade him to take bath in the pond. The witnesses examined in this case as an eye-witness like P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have categorically admitted that they have only seen the occurrence of scuffle and assault between the informant and a mob of 20-25 persons and identified only appellant No.2 and appellant No.5 present behind the dock. It is further submitted that the informant (P.W.4) has also stated that the place of occurrence was pond where both ladies and gents were taking bath and there was no dispute at al between the informant and the accused persons regarding putting any restraint in taking bath in the pond. It is submitted that no such occurrence took place between the parties. P.W.5 is the Doctor, who has examined the informant-cum-injured, and has categorically stated that

¶57

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶58

5

¶59

2026:JHHC:17080

¶60

the injuries were simple in nature which might be caused due to fall on the ground. Therefore, there is strong probability that due to teasing the women, who were taking bath at another side of the ghaat of the same pond, some scuffle took place in which the informant was dashed and sustained some injuries. Learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall evidence adduced by the prosecution in its right perspective considering the core testimony of every witness and arrived at wrong conclusion about guilt of the appellants.

¶61

In the alternative, it is submitted that the appellants cannot be held guilty for any of offence under SC/ST Act rather it may be a case of offence under sections 341 and 323 of IPC only. The prosecution has also failed to prove commission of theft of watch, which has been added ornamentally and believed by the learned trial court. The appellants have remained in custody for about 2 months during trial and postconviction. Therefore, sufficiently punished for their guilt. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the appellants for the offence under sections 341 and 323 of IPC may be reduced for the imprisonment already undergone.

¶62

Submission on behalf of State:-

¶63

11.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. controverting the aforesaid arguments submitted that there is no substance in the points of arguments raised by the appellants. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered

¶64

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶65

6

¶66

2026:JHHC:17080

¶67

the overall factual aspects of the case, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution story cannot be disbelieved only on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer of this case. The contents of FIR have been consistently proved by the ocular testimony of the witnesses, who were present on spot and find corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, P.W.5. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶68

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

¶69

12.I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶70

13.The only point for determination in this appeal is that “ as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal? ”

¶71

14.Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants.

¶72

P.W.1- Shamsul Hoda has deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 11:00 am to 11:30 am, while he was passing

¶73

7

¶74

2026:JHHC:17080

¶75

through the pond, saw that Jitendra Yadav and Ajay Ravidas were scuffling and six other persons associated with Jintendra Yadav were also dashing and slapping the informant. He has not identified six other accused persons. He has also not stated that in his presence, the accused persons have prohibited Ajay Ravidas from taking bath in the pond or insulted in the name of caste.

¶76

P.W.2-Kailash Ravidas is a co-villager of the informant and has stated that on 30.01.1999 at about 11:00 am, while he was going to pond to take bath, he saw that Ajay Ravidas (informant), Jitendra Yadav, Mohan, Mahavir, Rohit and 3-4 other persons were taking bath in the pond. In the meantime, Jitendra Gope forbade the informant to wash his clothes and take bath saying that “ Dusad and Chamar are taking bath”. Upon this, a scuffle and hot talk took place between Ajay Ravidas and Jitendra, Rohit, Mohan, Mahavir and ors.

¶77

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that after 10 days of occurrence, the police interrogated him about the incident. He admits that the pond belongs to Yadav Community. He also admits that there are two separate ghaats in the said pond for taking bath by male and female and some ladies were also taking bath in the pond at that time.

¶78

P.W.3-Riyazuddin has also claimed to see the scuffle and assault between the informant, Ajay Ravidas and accused, Jitendra

¶79

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶80

8

¶81

2026:JHHC:17080

¶82

Yadav, Rohit, Mohan and others. The accused persons were saying that “tum harijan jaise logon ko apne talab me nahi nahane denge”. He further admits that he came to know about the occurrence from Ajay Ravidas. Therefore, he is simply hearsay witness. This witness is a CCL employee and admits that after 2-4 months of the incident, he was interrogated by the police. He cannot explain whether on the date of occurrence, he was discharging his duty or not? This witness also admits that he came to know about actual words used by the accused persons from the informant. Therefore, as regards the actual words used against the informant, this witness appears to be a hearsay witness.

¶83

P.W.4-Ajay Ravidas is the informant of this case. According to him, he was taking bath in the pond and that time, Jitendra Yadav and others were also taking bath. In the meantime, Jitendra Yadav @ Bengali, Rohit, Birchand, Mahavir, Mohan, Jagan Gope about 6-7 persons started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister and also said “ harijan , chamar ” why you are taking bath in this pond. Upon protest by this witness, the accused persons assaulted him by lathi and danda on both hands and legs and chest. When he raised alarm then Kailash Ravidas, Riyazuddin and Shamsul Hoda came to place of occurrence and saved him and he was brought to his home. He has proved his written report as Ext.1.He further states that in the pond, the

¶84

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶85

9

¶86

2026:JHHC:17080

¶87

members of all community take bath since long. He was sent to hospital for medication examination.

¶88

In cross-examination, this witness admits that Shamsul Hoda, Kailash Ravidas, Riyazuddin reached at the place of occurrence after the incident of assault was over and all the accused persons had fled away. Therefore, this witness himself confirms that the aforesaid witnesses namely, Shamsul Hoda, Kailash Ravidas and Jagdish were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He further admits that he has no receipt of HMT Chirag wrist watch, which was snatched by the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that on the date of occurrence, this witness along with others went towards ladies gaaht of the said pond and started shouting then Jitendra Yadav forbade them, upon which, this witness along with others assaulted Jitendra Gope, who was admitted in the hospital and also lodged a case against him and this case was lodged after six hours after lodging of the case by the accused, Jitendra Gope against this witness and others. He has also denied the suggestion of defence that he was never prohibited from taking bath in the said pond by the accused persons. He also admits that the house of accused persons is also situated in front of his house and there is a government well and the accused persons never forbade the informant taking water from the said well. He also admits that prior to this

¶89

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶90

10

¶91

2026:JHHC:17080

¶92

occurrence, no dispute ever arose with the accused persons nor have they raised any dispute with any other member of harijan caste.

¶93

P.W.5- Dr. Mahadeo Prasad has examined the injured,

¶94

Ajay Ravidas on 30.01.1999 and found following injuries:

¶95

(i) Marked swelling and tenderness over right elbow palmer region

¶96

(ii) Abrasion reddish brown in colour 3” x ½” over left shoulder

¶97

(iii) Abrasion reddish brown in colour 2” x ½” over chest (iv)Abrasion reddish brown in colour 4” x ½” over left elbow region and

¶98

(v) Swelling and tenderness over left side scapular region

¶99

(vi) Swelling and tenderness over both knees.

¶100

All the injuries are opined to be simple in nature. For injury No.(i), X-ray was advised and he received X-ray report and found no fracture. He proved the injury report as Ext.2 and 2/1.

¶101

15.From the aforesaid discussion of ocular testimony of witnesses. It appears that except the informant (P.W.4), all other witnesses of facts have derived their knowledge about the occurrence from the informant himself. The contents of FIR, which is based upon written report (Ext.1) of the informant (P.W.4) clearly goes to show that there is nothing abusive language used in the name of caste of the informant prohibiting from taking bath in the pond. It is also admitted by the informant that when he came out after taking bath from the pond, thereafter, scuffle

¶102

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶103

11

¶104

2026:JHHC:17080

¶105

took place with the accused persons and he was assaulted. It is admitted fact that the said pond was not a public pond rather it belongs to ‘Yadav Community’ and it is also admitted fact by the prosecution witnesses that there are two ghaats at the pond, one for ladies and another for gents. Therefore, the defence plea that while female members were taking bath, the informant was teasing them and as a result of which, some dispute and scuffle took place in a sudden manner, wherein the informant has sustained some injuries of dashing and falling on ground like abrasion and swelling, which are opined to be simple in nature. Therefore, the core prosecution case regarding actual use of words to be disgraceful and humiliating in the name of caste of the informant appears to be absolutely doubtful and not corroborated from any independent witnesses and there are exaggerations and discrepancies in material particulars in the evidence of the informant (P.W.4) himself.

¶106

16.The appellants have also been held guilty for the offences under sections 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is, therefore, appropriate to extract relevant provisions for better appreciation of this case.

¶107

“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.---- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

¶108

…………………….

¶109

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

12

2026:JHHC:17080

……………………

(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water;

¶114

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

¶115

The offence under section 3(1)(v) is not constituted in this case at all. It appears to be a fit case of misuse of aforesaid provisions by the informant without any reasonable and probable cause in order to make the offence grave similarly the charge of theft of wrist watch was also not proved by the prosecution. The informant himself has disclosed the name of accused persons to other witnesses, who have not been able to identify all the accused persons rather states about the involvement of only two accused persons, which also casts doubt in the prosecution evidence. Such type of material discrepancies and exaggerations has been ignored from the consideration by the learned trial court.

¶116

17.In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charges leveled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2009 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2009 passed by

¶117

13

¶118

learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Bokaro in Spl. SC/ST G.R. Case No.81 of 1999 is, hereby, set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. This appeal is allowed .

¶119

18.The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from liability of their bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.

¶120

19.Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

¶121

20.Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back

¶122

to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶123

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶124

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 12/06 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 15/06 /2026

¶125

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.768 of 2009

¶126

14

Mahavir Yadav Mahavir Gope And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Yadav Mahavir Gope And Ors. v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Mahto And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md.Islam Vs State of Jharkhand

Md Hadis Alias Md Hadish Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mrs Aparna Atul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr Vs The State Of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Dashrath Mahto And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md.Islam Vs State of Jharkhand

Md Hadis Alias Md Hadish Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mrs Aparna Atul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav  Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganesh Chandra Kumbhkar Alias Ganesh Ch Kumbhakr Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhushan Yadav Shashi Bhushan Biritia And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand