Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Das vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 July, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Rajesh Kumar
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 66 of 2014
(Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 13.01.2014 (sentence passed on 18.01.2014) passed by
Smt. Seema Sinha, learned A.J.C.-III cum FTC (CAW), Ranchi in
S.T. No. 77/2009.)
Amit Kumar Das, S/o Sri Krishna Mohan Das, R/o Vill-
Pirra, P.O. Ratu Chatti, P.S.- Ratu, Dist.- Ranchi.
... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
----
Dated : 16/07/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 13-01-2014 (sentence passed on
18-01-2014) passed by Smt. Seema Sinha, learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-III cum FTC (CAW), Ranchi in connection
with S.T. No. 77/2009, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
376, 302 and 201 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in
default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month under Section 302 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence
under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default in payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence
under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Manoj
Kerketta recorded on 14-11-2008 in which it has been stated that
on 13-11-2008, the informant and his family members were in
the house when at 7:00P.M., the father-in-law of the informant,
namely Suleman Khalkho came at which, the eight-year-old
daughter of the informant victim "A" had announced the arrival
of her grandfather. The daughter of the informant thereafter went
outside, but when she did not return even at 10:00P.M., the
informant and his family members became worried and started
searching for her in the neighborhood. In course of search of the
daughter of the informant, her friend Soni Kumari had disclosed
that at 8:00P.M., she had seen Amit Kumar Das(appellant) and
the daughter of the informant going towards the Railway line.
After getting this information, the informant and others went to
the house of Amit Kumar Das, but he could not be found. It has
been stated that today, i.e., 14-11-2008 in course of search, the
semi-nude dead body of the daughter of the informant was found
near the pond. There were scratch marks on the neck and body
of the deceased and one eye was found damaged. On seeing the
dead body, it could be gathered that after committing rape upon
the victim, she was murdered.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Khelari P.S. Case No.
98/2008 was instituted under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC
against Amit Kumar Das. 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 S.T. No. 77/2009. Charge was framed against the accused
under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC which was read over and
explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 15 (fifteen)
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Mukta Bahadur Thapa has stated that on 13-11-
2008, he had gone to the market at 5:00P.M. and returned home
at 8:00P.M. On seeing him, his daughter Soni alias Muskan had
come running and when he asked as to from where she was
coming so late in the evening, she had disclosed that Amit had
given chocolate and was taking her and victim "A" towards the
pond. She had stated that due to fear of her father she had
returned back home while the victim "A" had gone with Amit.
After some time, he and the others had started searching for
victim "A", but she could not be found. In the morning, the dead
body of victim "A" was found near the pond in a naked condition.
Her left eye was found injured.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement
was recorded by the Police.
P.W.2 Manoj Ekka has stated that on 13-11-2008, he was
in his house and he had heard that the daughter of Manoj
Kerketta was raped and murdered and her body was thrown near
the pond by Amit Kumar Das. In the morning, he had gone to the
house of Manoj Kerketta where a crowd had already gathered and
the Police were seen having caught hold of Amit Kumar Das. He
has stated that Amit Kumar Das had confessed before the Police.
He has proved his signature on the confessional statement of
Amit Kumar Das which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when he had
reached the house of Manoj Kerketta, the Police had arrested
Amit Kumar Das by then and had taken him to the house of
Manoj Kerketta.
P.W.3 Suleman Khalkho is the grandfather of the deceased
who has stated that on 13-11-2008 he had gone to the house of
his son-in-law. Her granddaughter had gone to the shop to bring
flour and when on returning she saw him, she had told her
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
mother to prepare tea. Her granddaughter had thereafter kept
the flour and went outside. When she did not return, they had
gone to the house of Soni Kumari, who had disclosed that she
had seen his granddaughter going with Amit Kumar Das towards
the Railway line. Despite a search conducted, when the victim
"A" could not be traced out, they had gone to the house of Amit
Kumar Das but the inmates of the house disclosed that he is not
at home. When in the morning, they were returning from the
house of Amit Kumar Das, a commotion was heard from the side
of the pond where the dead body of victim "A" with injuries on
her person was seen lying. He has proved his signature and the
signature of Manoj Kerketta on the fardbeyan which have been
marked as Exhibit-2/A and 2 respectively. At the place of
occurrence, a black colored pant, three toffees and one Tiranga
Gutka were recovered and seized. He has proved his signature
upon the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He
has proved his signature on the confessional statement of Amit
Kumar Das which has been marked as Exhibit-1/A.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that nobody had
come forward to say about witnessing the incident. The Police
had caught Amit Kumar Das near the pond and brought him to
the house of Manoj Kerketta where he had given a confessional
statement. He had gone to the house of Manoj at 7:00P.M. on 13-
11-2008 and Santosh Khalkho was present in the house at that
point of time. Santosh Khalkho was arrested on 14-11-2008 in
the morning near the pond from where the dead body was
recovered.
P.W.4 Shailesh Kumar has stated that on 14-11-2008 on
coming to know that the accused, who was instrumental in the
rape and murder of a girl has been apprehended by the Police, he
had gone to Bhutnagar Colony and saw the accused whose name
he later on came to know as Amit Kumar Das. A large crowd
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
had gathered at the said place. He had signed on the confessional
statement of Amit Kumar Das and the said confessional
statement has already been marked as Exhibit-4.
P.W.5 Muskan alias Soni Gurung has stated that the
victim "A" was her friend who died on 13-11-2008. On that day,
she had gone to the house of victim "A" and both had gone to a
shop to buy Tiranga and chocolate and the money for purchasing
was given by Amit uncle. She had given Tiranga Gutka to Amit
uncle, who was in the field and when she saw her father coming,
she left for her home. The victim "A" and Amit uncle remained in
the field. When the mother of victim "A" had come to her house
at night searching for victim "A", she had told her that she had
returned back home on seeing her father, while the victim "A"
went away with Amit uncle. In the next morning, the dead body
of victim "A" was found lying near the pond which is not far off
from the field. She knew Amit uncle because he used to frequent
the house of victim "A". She has identified her signature in her
164 Cr.P.C. statement.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the house of
victim "A" is adjacent to the field. There is a Railway line and
some quarters in between the pond and the field. In the evening,
the residents of the colony frequent the ground. When she had
brought Tiranga and had come to the ground, about 10 persons
from the colony were already present in the ground. She does not
know what happened after she rushed back home on seeing her
father. When she had gone to the house of victim "A" at 6:30P.M.,
Amit uncle and another person whose name she does not know
were present. When she had given the Tiranga to Amit uncle in
the field, that person was present. She had seen that person on
several occasions with Amit. The said person is from a different
colony and is known to the family members of victim "A".
P.W.6 Akbar Ansari has stated that he has a Gumti near
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
mines quarter and he sells Tiranga Gutka, Toffees etc. He knows
victim "A" whose house is adjacent to his Gumti. The victim "A"
was dead and on 14-11-2008, her dead body was recovered from
near the pond. The victim "A" had come to his Gumti on 13-11-
2008 at 7:00-7:30P.M. and another girl named Soni was
accompanying her. They had purchased Tiranga Gutka and
chocolates and had left his Gumti.
P.W.7 Santosh Bhagat has stated that the accused is his
friend. On 13-11-2008, he and the accused had gone to the
house of Manoj Kerketta for having tea and after having tea he
had left for the house of Mukta Bahadur, while Amit went
towards the ground. After visiting the house of Mukta Bahadur,
he had left for his house. At about 10:30P.M., Manoj Kerketta
and his wife had come to his house and disclosed that Soni had
stated to them that victim "A" has been taken towards the
Railway line by Amit. He, along with the parents of victim "A" had
gone to the house of Amit, but he was not found present. They
had searched at all the probable places, but victim "A" could not
be traced out and he had returned back to his house. In the next
morning, the naked dead body of victim "A" was recovered from
besides the pond. The neighbours had called Amit to the said
place and he was found to be having scratches on his face and
hand.
In cross-examination he has deposed that Police had
arrested him along with Amit, but on the next day, he was freed.
He had stopped at the house of Mukta Bahadur for 10 minutes.
P.W.8 Sandeep Kumar has stated that the incident had
occurred in the winter of the year 2008 and he had seen the dead
body of the victim "A" near Bhutnagar pond. He had signed on
the inquest report.
P.W.9 Manoj Kerketta is the informant and the father of
the deceased who has stated that the accused never used to
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
frequent his house. On 13-11-2008 at 5:00PM, the accused had,
for the first time, came to his house with his friend Santosh and
after staying for 5-10 minutes, they had left. In the evening at
7:00-7:30PM, his daughter had gone out of the house after
asking her mother to prepare tea as her grandfather had come at
that point of time. When she did not return even at 10:00PM, he
started searching for her in the locality and Soni Kumari had
disclosed having seen Amit taking his daughter with him towards
the Railway line. In the night, he had gone to the house of Amit
2-3 times, but he was not found at his house. In the morning, at
6:00AM, when he had gone towards the pond, he had found the
dead body of his daughter which had marks of violence on her
body and the body was in a half-naked condition. The Police had
come and recorded his fardbeyan which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-6.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when Amit and
Santosh had come to his house he was not present and he came
to know about their coming from the inmates of the house. He
had not made any complaint against Santosh Khalkho.
P.W.10 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Prasad was posted as a Tutor in
the Department of F.M.T., RIMS, Ranchi and on 14-11-2008, he
had conducted autopsy on the dead body of victim "A" and had
found the following:
On General Examination:- The deceased
was a girl aged about 8 years of average
built and rigor mortis was present all over,
abdomen was slightly distended, soft
tissues around the right eye and multiple
pears size over both thigh were eaten by
equatic life and were postmortem in nature.
On Further Examination:-
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
(i) Abrasions of size 2cm x ¼cm, ½ cm x
½ cm, ½ cm x ½ cm on front of right
side of neck nearby to each other.
(ii) Abrasion of size 1 cm x ¼ cm under
surface of chin.
(iii) Abrasion of size ¼ cm x ¼ cm, ¼ cm x
¼ cm, ¼ cm x ¼ cm on left lateral neck.
Besides abrasion there was no
external injuries.
On Internal Examination:-
Both lungs were found voluminous,
edematous and frothy fluid comes out on
cutting. The respiratory passage contains
frothy fluid. The hymen is intact and
spermatozoa not found in vaginal swab.
The cause of death was opined to be due to asphyxia as a
result of drowning. The abrasions were ante-mortem in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance and were not sufficient to
cause death. The post mortem report has been proved and
marked as Exhibit-7. He has stated that the possibility of rape
cannot be denied.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not find
any symptoms suggesting sexual intercourse. The abrasions are
possible if a person accidentally falls into a pond by rolling.
P.W.11 Lawrence Soren has deposed that on 13-11-2008
in the evening, Manoj Kerketta had called him over phone and
informed him that his daughter has become traceless. On 14-11-
2008, he had gone to the house of Manoj Kerketta where he had
seen a crowd having gathered and Amit Kumar Das being caught
hold by the Police. Amit Kumar Das had confessed in his
presence as well as in the presence of the Police that he had
committed the murder of victim "A". On the confession of Amit
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
Kumar Das, Police had recovered a black half pant, a Tiranga
Gutka and three toffees from besides the dead body. He has
proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked
as Exhibit-8. He has proved his signature on the confessional
statement of the accused which has been marked as Exhibit-9.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement
was not recorded by the Police.
P.W.12 Md. Ismail Ansari has proved his signature on the
inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-10 with
objection.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not
know as to who is the informant.
P.W.13 Luisa Khalkho is the mother of the deceased who
has stated that on 13-11-2008 her daughter had come home at
7:00PM after purchasing flour. She had some chocolates with her
and when asked, her daughter had disclosed that they were given
to him by Amit Das. At that point of time, her father Suleman
Khalkho had come and her daughter asked her to prepare tea for
her grandfather after which she left. When her daughter did not
return home, a search was made and in course of search, she
had gone to the house of Mukta Bahadur where his daughter
Soni Kumari had disclosed that she had seen her daughter going
with Amit Kumar Das towards the Railway line. Her daughter
could not be traced out at night and in the morning, her dead
body was found in the pond. There was a mark of injury on her
left eye. Amit Das and Santosh Bhagat had tea earlier in her
house.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that 10-12 persons
including her were making a search for her daughter. When she
had gone to the house of Soni Kumari in search of her daughter,
Santosh Bhagat, Mukta Bahadur, Harimaya Devi and Soni
Kumari were present. It takes about five minutes time to travel
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
to the pond from her house. There is a vapor light situated just
besides the Railway line. There is a Weigh Bridge of CCL near the
pond which was closed at the time of the incident. It takes 2-3
minutes to go to the Weigh Bridge from her house. There are
vapor lamps in and around the Weigh Bridge. The Police had
arrested Amit Kumar Das from near the pond and they had also
arrested Santosh Bhagat. Santosh Bhagat was freed in the Police
station itself. She does not have any dispute with Amit Kumar
Das.
P.W.14 Manoj Kumar Tripathy was posted as a Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi and as per the order of C.J.M.,
Ranchi, he had recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Muskan
alias Soni Kumari. He has proved his handwriting and signature
in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement which has been marked as Exhibit-
5/1.
P.W.15 Naresh Prasad Sinha was posted as an Officer-in-
charge of Khelari P.S. and on 14-11-2008, he had recorded the
fardbeyan of Manoj Kerketta. He has proved the handwriting and
signature of Sub-Inspector Arjun Singh on the formal F.I.R.
which has been marked as Exhibit-2/b. The formal F.I.R. has
been proved and marked as Exhibit-11. The inquest report has
been proved and marked as Exhibit-10/a. He had inspected the
place of occurrence which is a pond near the Railway Siding at
Bhutnagar. The pond is big and filled with water. Some broken
foliage was found in the southern part of the pond. At a distance
of about 100 feet, is a closed Weigh Bridge. In course of
investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses.
On 15-11-2008, he had arrested the accused after which, he had
confessed to have committed the crime. The confessional
statement has been proved and marked as Exhibit-12. On the
basis of the confessional statement of the accused, the second
place of occurrence was inspected where the accused is said to
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
have committed the rape and murder of victim "A". In course of
inspection, he had found three toffees, one Tiranga Gutka and a
black half pant on the eastern side facing room of the weigh
bridge. The black half pant was identified by the informant and
his wife to be that of their daughter. He has proved the seizure
list which has been marked as Exhibit-3/A. The seizure list was
signed by the witnesses Suleman Khalkho and Lawrence Soren
and the accused Amit Kumar Das. He had sent the accused for
medical examination to Referral Hospital, Mandar. He had got
recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Muskan Kumari alias Soni
Kumari. He has proved the application sent to the C.J.M., Ranchi
requesting for recording the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Muskan
Kumari which has been marked as Exhibit-13. He had received
the autopsy report and had also recorded the statement of some
of the witnesses. On the orders of his superior authority, he had
submitted charge sheet. He has proved the arrest memo which
has been marked as Exhibit-14.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not
mentioned in the diary, the distance between the pond and the
body which was lying. The house of the informant is situated at
a distance of 500 yards from the place of occurrence. None of the
witnesses had seen the victim "A" near the pond. When he had
reached the place of occurrence, the body was found besides the
pond. The persons present had disclosed that the body was in
the pond. He had not recovered any weapon during the entire
investigation.
5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the rape
and murder of victim "A".
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned
counsel for the appellant that in the fardbeyan, mention has been
made of the disclosure of Soni Kumari about seeing the appellant
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
going towards the Railway line with the victim "A", but such
disclosure is contradicted in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Soni
Kumari and in her evidence as P.W. 5. In fact, P.W.5 does not
even say about the taking away of the victim "A" by the appellant.
It has been submitted that several persons were present in the
field when the victim "A" was in the company of the appellant,
but none have been examined by the prosecution. Mr. Sinha has
submitted that three possibilities have been propounded by the
prosecution which are based on (a) the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of
Muskan, (b) the evidence of P.W.5 and (c) the evidence of P.W.13
recorded at Para 7. The appellant has been convicted only on the
basis of presumption despite the chain of circumstances being
not complete. Mr. Sinha has drawn the attention of the Court to
the evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) which suggests that the victim
"A" was not subjected to rape and the death occurred due to
drowning.
7. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
case is based on last seen theory. The proximity of recovery of
the dead body from the time the deceased was last seen with the
appellant is itself a strong circumstance pointing to the guilt of
the appellant. The confessional statement of the appellant has
led to recovery of a black half-pant of the victim "A" and three
toffees as well as a Tiranga Gutka and such recovery is directly
connected to the appellant as it was the appellant at whose
behest the victim "A" had purchased toffees and Tiranga Gutka.
The doctor has opined that probability of rape cannot be ruled
out which furthermore enhances the role played by the appellant
in committing such a heinous crime.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and also have perused the trial court records.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, there are no eye witnesses
to the occurrence. The conviction of the appellant is based on
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
circumstantial evidence. The primary circumstances which have
been projected by the prosecution is of the deceased being last
seen with the appellant in the field going towards the Railway
line and the confessional statement of the appellant which has
led to recovery of a black half-pant identified by the parents of
the deceased as belonging to the deceased and three toffees as
well as a Tiranga Gutka which the prosecution has sought to
connect with the appellant since it was the appellant who was
given the Gutka by P.W.5 and the deceased and they had also
brought toffees from the money given by the appellant.
10. In the fardbeyan of the informant, mention has been made
about the disclosure of Soni Kumari (P.W.5) to the effect that in
the field she had seen the deceased going along with the
appellant towards the Railway line. The field is adjacent to the
colony and, as per P.W.5 in the evening, the residents of the
colony frequent the field. P.W.5 has stated that she had given a
Tiranga Gutka to the appellant and the victim "A" was also with
her, but on seeing her father coming, out of fear, she rushed back
to her house. The victim "A" and the appellant remained in the
ground. The evidence of P.W.5 would, therefore, suggest that the
informant has exaggerated the purported disclosure made to him
by P.W.5 as depicted in the fardbeyan. P.W.5 has also stated
about 10 persons being present in the field, but none have been
examined by the prosecution. What is rather concerning is the
presence of another person with the appellant in the field and
though she has expressed her ignorance of the name of the said
person, but the presence of the said person in the house of victim
"A" on the same day along with the appellant would indicate
almost with certainty that it was Santosh Bhagat, who has been
examined as P.W.7. As per P.W.7, he was arrested by the Police,
but on the next day he was freed. P.W.7 though has admitted to
have gone to the house of the informant along with the appellant,
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
but he has not uttered a single word regarding he being with the
appellant in the field. Surprisingly P.W.15 (I.O.) has not even
whispered about the arrest of Santosh Bhagat. The Investigating
Officer has not explored the possibility of the involvement of the
said witness (P.W.7) in the commission of the offence. The
evidence of P.W.5, therefore, decimates the case of the
prosecution with respect to the last seen theory.
11. We may at this juncture, take notice of the findings of the
autopsy report. The cause of death has been opined to be
asphyxia due to drowning. The abrasions found on the body has
also been explained by the doctor conducting post-mortem that
such abrasions are possible if a person accidentally rolls and falls
in the pond. Though the body of victim "A" was found near the
pond, but there cannot be any doubt that she had drowned and
somebody must have pulled the body from the pond and kept it
on the ground. So far as rape is concerned, the hymen was found
intact and nothing has been mentioned in the post-mortem
report of any signs of injury on the private parts of victim "A"
suggestive of even an attempt to commit rape.
12. The confessional statement of the appellant seems to have
gathered evidentiary value as per the prosecution as certain
incriminating articles were said to have been recovered on the
basis of such confession. The articles including a black pant of
victim "A" was recovered from the Weigh Bridge as per the seizure
list. This Weigh Bridge, as per P.W.13, was closed at the time of
the incident. The seizure list was signed by Suleman Khalkho
and Lawrence Soren who have been examined as P.W.3 and
P.W.11 respectively. What has been stated by these witnesses
regarding seizure is an interesting read. P.W.3 has stated about
presence of the said articles besides the dead body. P.W.11 has
stated that on the confession of the appellant, seizure was made
of a black pant, a tiranga gutka and three toffees from besides
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19641-DB )
the dead body. None of the seizure list witnesses have stated
about any seizure made from the Weigh Bridge. In such
circumstance, the prosecution is unable to prove convincingly
that the seizure was effected on the confession of the appellant
and recovery of the articles besides the dead body automatically
reduces the impact of such confessional statement.
13. The circumstantial evidence banked upon by the
prosecution in view of the discussions made hereinabove are
weak in nature and cannot form the basis for conviction of the
appellant. The learned trial court is in error while convicting the
appellant and consequently, we hereby set aside the judgment
and orders of conviction and sentence dated 13-01-2014
(sentence passed on 18-01-2014) passed by Smt. Seema Sinha,
learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III cum FTC (CAW),
Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 77/2009.
14. This appeal is allowed.
15. Since the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be
released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other
case.
16. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(RAJESH KUMAR, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 16th Day of July, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
