[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sarjit Kaur Wife Of Late Amar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:9730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009
[Against the judgment of acquittal dated 07th February, 2001 passed by 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.66 of 1995]
----
Sarjit Kaur wife of late Amar Singh, resident of Barhi, P.O.+P.S.- Barhi,
District - Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deleted
3. Kishori Singh @ Kishori Ram son of Jagarnath Singh
4. Rambriksh Singh son of Jagarnath Singh
5. Mahendra Singh son of Jagarnath Singh
6. Amanat Hussain son of late Lato Khan
All resident of Barhi, P.S. - Barhi, District - Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Private Respondents : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv.
----
By Court:
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant(s), Mr.
Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, &
Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal
passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Criminal Appeal
No.66 of 1995 dated 07.02.2001 whereby and whereunder the learned
appellate court has set aside the judgment of the conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in
Complaint Case No.329 of 1991 dated 27.04.1995 whereby and whereunder
the Respondent Nos.3-6/accused persons of the case were held guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 452 and 380 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section
2026:JHHC:9730
323 of the IPC, for one year under Section 452 IPC and for two years under
Section 380 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/appellant filed
a complaint on 30.08.1991 alleging that on 30.06.1991 at about 11:00 A.M.,
while she was present at the place of occurrence along with her minor sons,
namely Jagbindra Singh and Sukhbindra Singh, all the accused persons,
along with 10 others, arrived there and forcibly entered her hotel. It is
alleged that they began removing utensils worth Rs. 2,000/-, four re-soled
truck tyres worth Rs. 25,000/-, a steel box containing cash of Rs. 2,500/-,
garments worth Rs. 2,000/-, and wood and bamboo worth Rs. 2,500/- kept
for repair purposes. Upon protest by the complainant, the accused persons
allegedly assaulted her and her sons with fists. On hearing the alarm, several
witnesses and local residents gathered at the place of occurrence, witnessed
the incident, and protested against the unlawful acts, whereupon the accused
persons fled away with the aforesaid articles, causing substantial loss to the
complainant. It is further stated that although the complainant reported the
matter to the police, no action was taken, compelling her to file the present
complaint before the court.
4. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging a complaint
being Complaint Case No.329 of 1991. On the basis of the complaint, the
complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and, upon examination of
other witnesses, the learned court below was pleased to take cognizance
against the accused persons under Sections 323, 452 and 380 of the I.P.C.
5. To substantiate the charges against the respondents, the complainant
had examined altogether eleven witnesses.C.W.1 Sukar Yadav, C.W.2
Karim Mian, C.W.3 is Md. Shakoor, C.W.4 is Kudus Ansari, C.W.5 is Tilak
Singh, C.W.6 is Sarabjeet Kaur (complainant), C.W.7 is Arjun Singh, C.W.8
is Mahadev Yadav, C.W.9 is Chandar Korba, C.W.10 is Md. Hasim and
C.W.11 is Akshay Kumar Bakshi. It appears that C.W.7 to 11 are formal
witnesses and they proved some documentary evidence.
6. At this juncture, it is necessary to consider the evidence of C.W.-6,
Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur (the complainant). According to her, Kishori and
Page | 2 Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009
2026:JHHC:9730
Mahendra assaulted her, and her two sons were assaulted by Ram Briksh
Singh and Amanat Hussain. The complaint petition has been duly examined
by the complainant.
7. C.W.-2 has nowhere stated anything regarding any assault, and C.W.-
3 has deposed only with respect to the assault on the two sons of Sarabjeet
Kaur. The other C.Ws. have not stated anything regarding any assault either
upon the complainant or her two sons.
8. Thereafter, the learned trial court, upon hearing the parties and
appreciating the materials available on record, convicted the accused persons
under the aforesaid sections vide judgment dated 27.04.1995 passed in
Complaint Case No. 329 of 1991 (T.R. No. 63 of 1995).
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.04.1995, the accused
persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1995, wherein the appellate
court, upon re-evaluation of the evidence, found the case to be surrounded
by doubt and, accordingly, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused
persons; as a result, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 27.04.1995 was set aside, and the accused persons were
acquitted vide judgment dated 07.02.2001.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of
acquittal on the following grounds:
(i) There was sufficient evidence on record which has
been wrongly negated;
(ii) Non-examination of two injured victims could not
be a ground for acquittal;
(iii) There are other witnesses also to suggest that the
theft has been committed and the victim has also been
assaulted and as such the judgment of conviction by
the trial court was correct and reversal of it by the
appellate court is bad in law.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Respondent
No.3-6 have supported the judgment of acquittal and it has been submitted
that:
Page | 3 Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009
2026:JHHC:9730
(i) The complaint petition was lodged after a delay of
two months from the date of occurrence;
(ii) The only explanation has been given that they have
been assured by the police regarding the recovery of
the stolen article.
(iii) Even if the allegations are taken at face value, the
case would amount to dacoity and not theft;
(iv) The independent witnesses have not been
examined.
(v) No enquiry has been conducted regarding the place
of occurrence and even the factum of theft has not been
proved;
(vi) Although there is allegation of injury and treatment
but no injury report has been brought on record;
(vii) The evidence has been closely scrutinized by the
appellate court which has rightly found that the case is
surrounded by substantial doubt.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the records, it appears that:
(a) The complaint petition was lodged after a delay of
two months from the date of occurrence and the delay
has not been explained property;
(b) The important witnesses like two sons of the
complainant and independent witnesses have not been
examined;
(c) There is inconsistency in the evidences of all the
important witnesses;
(d) No injury report has been brought on record;
(e) No proper enquiry has been conducted regarding
the place of occurrence;
Page | 4 Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009
2026:JHHC:9730
(f) The evidence has also been closely scrutinized by
the appellate court and it has rightly been found that
there is sufficient area of doubt.
13. In view of the materials discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, vide judgment dated 07.02.2001.
14. Accordingly, this acquittal being without any merit is hereby
dismissed.
15. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith,
along with the copy of this judgment.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated: 07th April, 2026
Amar/NAFR
Uploaded on 09.04.2026
Page | 5 Acquittal Appeal No.10 of 2009
