[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Surat Alias Suraj Prasad Mehta Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 604 of 2002
......
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2002 and order of
sentence dated 22.08.2002, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.III, Hazaribagh , in Sessions Trial No.270 of
1995/F.T.C. III 204 of 2002]
......
Surat alias Suraj Prasad Mehta son of Late Rameshwar Mehta,
residents of Village - Pabra, P.S. Katkamsandi, dist.-Hazaribagh.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... Respondent
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 18.03.2026 Pronounced on 16.04.2026
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 1 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
2. It is pertinent to mention at the very outset that during the
pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Gulab Deo Mehta died
and his case have been abated vide order dated 17.11.2025. This
appeal is heard on behalf of above named sole appellant.
3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 21.08.2002 and order of sentence dated
22.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.-III, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.270 of
1995/F.T.C. III 204 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the
appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life. The appellants have been acquitted from the charges
under Section 148, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C. The other co-accused
persons, jointly tried with the appellants, namely Raj Kumar
Mehta, Ram Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash Mehta have been
acquitted extending the benefit of doubt.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell is that there
was land dispute between the informant and the accused persons
and litigation was also pending in the Court. It is alleged that on
06.11.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., all the five accused persons armed
with bhala, pharsa and lathi etc. approached to the field of
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 2 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
informant and started harvesting paddy crops grown by the
informant. It is further alleged that informant's father Ishwar
Dayal Mehta, Ram Awatar Mehta and uncle Bajrangi Prasad
Mehta went to the field and objected against the harvesting of
paddy crops by the accused persons, upon which Suraj Prasad
Mehta ordered to kill them and himself also started assaulting to
informant's father, uncle and brother by lathi and other accused
persons started assaulting them with danda, bhala etc. In the above
incident, informant's uncle Bajrangi Prasad Mehta fell down and
became unconscious. The informant and his cousin Ram Awatar
sustained serious head injuries. It is further alleged that injured
Bajrangi Prasad while under treatment died in the hospital. It was
alleged that several villagers have seen the occurrence. The
accused persons forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapon had assaulted the informant, his father, his cousin brother
and inflicting serious injuries and also murdered his uncle
Brajrangi Prasad.
The fardbeyan of the informant Govind Prasad Mehta was
recorded by S.I. Arun Kumar Singh, Officer-In-Charge, Pelawal
police outpost under Katkamsandi Police Station on 06.11.1994 at
about 16:30 hours in Sadar Hospital Surgical Ward No.13,
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 3 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
Hazaribagh. The formal F.I.R. was registered for the offences
under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 323, 307 of the I.P.C.
5. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against all the five accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The
accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and
claimed to be tried.
6. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been
passed which is assailed in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned
judgment and order has submitted that although, charge-sheet was
submitted against five accused persons for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C. but the
charges were framed against the five accused persons for offences
under Section 148, 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court has failed to
record any finding that there was any pre-plan and all the
convicted appellants have acted in concerted manner in
furtherance of their common intention to kill the deceased. It is
further submitted that the learned Trial Court also found that there
was no specific overt act against each accused persons, therefore,
acquitted three of the accused persons after conclusion of trial. So
far as role of present sole appellant is concerned, there is specific
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 4 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
allegation that he ordered the other co-accused persons who
assault the injured persons including the deceased. No overt act
has been attributed against the present appellant. Therefore, the
conviction of the appellant with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C.,
is not justified in this case. Admittedly, the dispute broke up
between the parties in a sudden manner while the appellant's
family members were harvesting paddy crops on their own filed.
The informant parties were aggressors and in spite of pendency of
suit, they were adamant to grab the field of the appellants without
lawful justification. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is based upon non-
consideration of material evidence available on record. The other
co-accused persons with similar allegation and on the basis of
same evidence, have been acquitted from the charges. Therefore,
the appellant could not have been convicted unless their specific
role and actual participation in the alleged offence, be exclusively
proved. Therefore, the distinction made by the Trial Court while
appreciating the evidence against the appellant is unfounded and
not sustainable. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is liable to
be set aside by allowing this appeal.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 5 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
In the alternative, it is submitted that admittedly, the dispute
arose in a sudden manner due to dispute of harvesting crop
without pre-meditation and without taking any undue advantage
of the situation. The role of appellant is also only of inciting the
occurrence without any participation by any lethal weapon.
Therefore, offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is not
constituted in this case rather it falls under Section 304 Part II of
the I.P.C. On the date of judgment, the appellant was aged about
56 years and at present, he is 80 years' old person and anyhow
discharges his daily pursuit of life. More than three decades have
been lapsed from the date of occurrence. The appellant has faced
the agony of trial throughout this period. It is further submitted
that during investigation, the appellant voluntarily surrendered
before the Court on 16.11.1994 and was released on bail granted
by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench and released on
08.12.1995. The petitioner was further taken into custody, after
passing the judgment of conviction on 21.08.2002 and thereafter,
released on bail during pendency of this appeal on 04/16.12.2002.
Therefore, the appellant has undergone the period of custody
about one and a half years during pendency of this case and has
sufficiently been punished for his guilt as extending incitement at
the spur of moment. Therefore, the appellant also deserves
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 6 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
sympathetical approach and leniency in the matter of sentence
which may be reduced and modified accordingly.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. defending the impugned
judgment of the appellant has submitted that the present appellant
was specifically involved in hurling the dispute and on his
provocation/instigation, the occurrence of assault took place. The
first blow was inflicted by the present appellant himself then
others also joined with him and committed the brutal assault
resulting in death of the deceased. The appellant has caused head
injury by lathi to the deceased fitted with iron rim, therefore, he
does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence also.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order calling for any interference by way of this appeal which is
devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
9. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, we have to take
brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial.
10. It appears that altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. The main witness of fact is P.W.5 Govind Prasad
Mehta-cum-informant of this case. According to his evidence on
06.11.1994 at about 11:00 a.m., he was present at his home then
received information that Suraj Prasad Mehta, Gulab Deo Mehta,
Raj Kumar Mehta, Ram Prakash Mehta and Ram Chandra Mehta
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 7 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
are harvesting his paddy crop situated at Kolhuabad. Upon this
information, he along with Mahesh Prasad Mehta, Pradeep Kumar
Mehta, Chato Mahto, Sarju Mahto went to his field and saw the
accused persons were harvesting his paddy crop. It is stated that
when this witness and his aforesaid family members forbade the
accused persons from cutting the paddy crops then present
appellant Suraj Prasad Mehta incited the other accused persons
saying that "ekjks lkyksa dks", upon this, all the accused persons
started assaulting to informant and his family members. He has
simply stated that present appellant and Gulab Deo Mehta
assaulted to his uncle Bajrangi Mehta, Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta
was assaulted by Gulab Deo Prasad Mehta, Raj Kumar Mehta and
Om Prakash Mehta. Ishwar Dayal Mehta was assaulted by Suraj
Prasad Mehta (appellant) and Raj Kumar Mehta. This witness was
assaulted by present appellant and Ram Chandra Mehta.
According to his evidence, his uncle Bajrangi Mehta fell down
and became unconscious then he was brought to Sadar Hospital,
Hazaribagh but in the way he died. His fardbeyan was recorded by
the police in the Sadar Hospital wherein he has proved his
signature as Ext.1.
It is quite apparent from the evidence of this witness that he
has stated nothing as to what weapon the accused persons were
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 8 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
holding and on which part of the body they have assaulted to the
injured persons. Although, it was mid-day, when the occurrence
took place and there were no crowd of persons rather from each
side, there were five persons only.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that land dispute
is going on between the parties since long and civil and criminal
cases are also pending. He has failed to produce any documentary
evidence showing his possession over the disputed land. In his
cross-examination, this witness admits that in the F.I.R., he has
stated as to which of the accused person has assaulted by which
weapon to the injured persons. He has denied that in the said
incident Suraj Mehta and Ram Chandra Mehta were also assaulted
by the informant party and injured. He has denied the suggestion
of defence that the disputed land was in possession of accused
persons and they have grown the paddy crop and were harvesting
the same but the informant party were raising objection and
wanted to grab the paddy crop of the accused persons and lodged
this false case.
P.W.6 Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta is the son of deceased
Bajrangi Mehta. According to his evidence on 06.11.1994 at about
09:30 a.m., he was going to his paddy field then saw that Suraj
Prasad Mehta, Gulab Deo Prasad Mehta, Raj Kumar Prasad
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 9 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
Mehta, Ram Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash were harvesting his
paddy crop. Upon protest, the accused persons assaulted to his
father and uncle. According to him, Suraj Prasad Mehta gave a
lathi blow in the abdomen of the deceased. He was also assaulted
by Raj Kumar and Gulab Deo on head and other part of body. His
father died while taking to the hospital. His brother Govind Prasad
Mehta was also assaulted by accused persons.
This witness has also not stated about specific role of each of
the accused persons and also admits that his uncle Bajrangi Mahto
sustained abdomen injury by lathi. Present appellant Suraj Prasad
Mehta had assaulted to his father on abdomen by lathi.
In his cross-examination, his attention has been drawn
towards statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein he has not stated that Suraj Prasad Mehta assaulted with
lathi in the abdomen to his father which he has denied.
P.W.1 Chato Mahto has deposed that on the date of
occurrence at about 11:00 a.m., he was present in a garden near
the place of occurrence where he saw that all the five accused
persons Surat Mahto, Gulab Deo Mahto, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ram
Chandra Mehta and Ram Prakash armed with lathi and bhala were
harvesting in the field of Bajrangi Mahto. This witness forbade the
accused persons from cutting paddy crops and also suggested that
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 10 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
at first get the matter resolved by Mukhiya and Sarpanch. Upon
this, the accused persons threatened and scold him and dashed due
to which he fell down. In the meantime, Surat Mahto and Gulab
Deo Mahto assaulted to Bajrangi Mahto. This witness has also not
stated that by which weapon and on what part of body, the
deceased was assaulted by present appellant.
P.W.2 Mahesh Prasad Mahto has also seen the accused
persons while harvesting paddy crops in the field of informant
party having iron fitted lathi. He has further stated Ishwar Mahto,
Bajrangi Mahto, Ram Awatar, Govind Mahto and Sudama reached
at the field and forbade the accused persons from harvesting their
paddy crops. Then Surat Mahto dashed them and ousted from the
field. He has further stated that Surat Prasad and Gulab Deo both
assaulted to Bajrangi by lathi who died during the course of
treatment. Thereafter, accused persons fled away.
In his cross-examination, this witness has expressed his
ignorance that the accused persons have grown the paddy crop
and were in possession of the same. He has denied that Surat and
Raj Kumar also sustained injuries assaulted by informant party.
P.W.3 Pradeep Kumar Mehta @ Bachhu Mehta has been
tendered by the prosecution and expressed no knowledge about
the occurrence.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 11 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
P.W.4 Ishwar Dayal Mahto has also stated about scuffle
took place between the parties due to harvesting of paddy crops
by the accused persons. He has given a new story that the accused
persons were concealing their arm in the field and Surat Prasad
Mahto (present appellant) assaulted to Bajrangi Mahto by lathi
fitted with bhala. Gulab Deo also assaulted to the injured Bajrangi
by lathi. He was assaulted by Surat and Raj Kumar and sustained
injury on head.
P.W.7 Dr. Nidhish Sharan has conducted autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased and has examined the injured persons.
(I) According to this witness on 06.11.1994, he examined the
Ishwar Dayal Mahto at about 12:35 p.m. and found following
injuries on his person :-
(i) Lacerated wound on the right parietal region 1½" x ¼"
bone deep.
(ii) Swelling over the left leg 3" x 3".
Above injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance such as lathi.
(II) On the same day at about 12:35 p.m., he examined Ram
Awatar Mahto and found following injuries :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 12 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
(i) Lacerated wound left parietal region 2" x ½" x bone
deep.
(ii) Parallel bruise right fore arm 3" x 1".
(iii) Parallel bruise left fore arm 3" x 1".
Above injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by
hard and blunt substance like lathi.
(III) On the same day, he examined Raj Kumar Mehta at about
12:40 p.m. and found following injuries :-
(i) Haematoma on left parietal region 2" x 2" in size.
This injury also opined to be simple in nature caused by hard
and blunt substance.
(IV) On that very day, he has examined Govind Prasad Mehta at
about 12:45 p.m. and found following injuries :-
(i) Lacerated wound on left parietal region 2½" x ¼" bone
deep.
This injury opined to be simple in nature caused by hard blunt
substance.
(V) On that very day, this witness has examined Suraj Prasad
Mehta at about 12:50 p.m. and found following injuries :-
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 13 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
(i) Lacerated wound on left ring finger ½" x ½".
(ii) Lacerated wound on left parietal region 3" x ½" x bone
deep near midline.
Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and
blunt substance. All the above injury reports are in his
handwriting and bears his signature which marked as Exts.2, 2/1,
2/2, 2/3 and 2/4 respectively.
P.W.8 Dr. Prem Das has conducted post-mortem on the dead
body of the deceased Bajrangi Mahto and found following :-
(i) Eyes - open, mouth - open, rigor mortis present.
Bruise over lower part of left side of chest 3" x 1". 2nd to 6th ribs
are fractured on left side.
(ii) On dissection - Left lung ruptured. Right lung intact
and pale.
Heart - all chambers empty.
Liver - Lacerated and pale.
Spleen - ruptured.
Kidney - intact & pale.
Stomach contains liquid fluid 6 OZ wall wound.
Bladder - empty.
Cause of death is opined to be shock and haemorrhage caused
by chest and abdominal viscera's injury. This injury opined to be
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 14 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
caused within 20 to 30 hours by hard and blunt object like lathi
and rod. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.3.
P.W.9 S.I. Arun Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of
this case. According to his evidence on 06.11.1994 at about 12:12
p.m., injured Radheshyam Mehta, Govind Prasad Mehta, Ishwar
Mehta, Raju Prasad Mehta, Surat Prasad Mehta and Raj Kumar
Mehta came to Pelawal outpost. Hence, he issued requisition for
medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and also went
to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where he recorded fardbeyan of
Govind Prasad Mehta and assumed the charge of investigation of
the case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Ext.4,
formal F.I.R. as Ext.5, inquest report of deceased Bajrangi Mahto
who died during treatment as Ext.6. He has recorded re-statement
of the informant and also seen the dead body for post-mortem
report. He also went to the place of occurrence and on the next
day, inspected the same. The place of occurrence is situated in
Village Pabra and paddy field situated over Plot No.4082 area 145
decimal which is recorded in the name of Prasadi Mahto. He
found about one bundle paddy was harvested and scattered.
Towards west side, there was field of Shiv Kumar. After
completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 15 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
11. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence
due to land dispute. One defence witness namely Raghu Mahto
(D.W.1) has been examined by the defence, who has stated that he
is acquainted with both the parties and also the disputed property.
The disputed property is in possession of accused persons who are
growing crops and cultivating the same since about 22 to 25 years.
He has stated nothing else about the occurrence.
12. We have given anxious consideration to the ocular testimony of
witnesses who claim themselves to be eye witnesses-cum-injured
persons. It is quite obvious from the evidence of injured witnesses
Ishwar Dayal (P.W.4), Govind Prasad Mehta (P.W.5) and Ram
Awatar Prasad Mehta (P.W.6) have categorically supported the
genesis and manner of occurrence but have failed to attribute any
specific weapon and any specific part of body where the present
appellant has assaulted. There is allegation that present appellant
and the Gulab Deo Mehta (appellant No.2 deceased) have given
lathi blow in the abdomen of the deceased and no other accused
persons were attributed any role in assaulting the deceased. There
is no head injury to the deceased. It also appears from the Post-
Mortem Report of the deceased that in the abdomen, he has
sustained injuries only on left side causing internal damage of
visceras as well as fracture of ribs. There is no evidence at all that
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 16 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
both the accused persons namely Surat prasad Mehta and Gulab
Deo Mehta simultaneously assaulted on left side of abdomen to
the deceased. It is also stated by witnesses that the appellant was
having a lathi fitted with iron rim but the injuries sustained by the
deceased are opined to be caused by hard and blunt object.
Therefore, there appears material contradictions in the evidence of
ocular witnesses regarding inflicting lathi blow in the abdomen of
deceased by the appellant Surat Prasad Mehta. It also appears
from the fardbeyan of the informant that he has categorically
stated that accused Surat Prasad Mehta was exciting and inciting
the other accused persons who assault the deceased. Therefore, the
specific allegation against the present appellant appears in the
evidence of P.W.4 Ishwar Dayal Mahto who says that he was
assaulted by lathi by Raj Kumar and Surat and sustained injuries
on head and which also finds corroboration from injury report.
13. Upon critical examinations of ocular testimony of witnesses, it
also appears that the disputed land was in possession of appellant
and they were cultivating the same. They have grown the paddy
crop and also harvesting the same. The informant party raised an
unwarranted protest and the scuffle broke in a sudden manner
without pre-meditation. Therefore, the necessary ingredients
constituting the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is lacking
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 17 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
in this case and in the factual background proved by the
prosecution, it comes within exception 4 appended to Section 300
of the I.P.C. which reads as under :-
"300. Murder. -- Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or--
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1.........
Exception 2..........
Exception 3..........
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it
is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender having taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault."
14. In this view of the matter, the offence falls under Section 304 Part
II of the I.P.C. There is no concrete evidence against the appellant.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 18 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
It is also quite obvious that three accused persons against whom
specific overt act has been attributed by the eye witnesses, have
been extended benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges
levelled against them. The appellant No.2 also died during
pendency of this appeal. The specific overt act against the
appellant in causing injury to Ishwar Dayal (P.W.4), Govind
Prasad Mehta (P.W.5) and Ram Awatar Prasad Mehta (P.W.6)
which was found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance.
15. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the conviction of
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is hereby
set aside and it is altered and modified to under Section 304 Part
II of the I.P.C.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and
manner of the occurrence as well as the overt act attributed
against the appellant and also in view of the fact that more than 30
years have been lapsed from the date of occurrence and the
appellant has sustained the agony of trial for such a considerable
period and at present, he is extremely old person aged about 80
years, we are of the considered view that the imprisonment of one
and a half years already undergone by the appellant during
investigation/trial and post-conviction is sufficient punishment for
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 19 |20
2026:JHHC:10904-DB
his guilt. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant is also reduced
and he is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone
for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.
17. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this appeal is
dismissed on merits with modification in conviction and sentence
of the appellant to the extent as stated above.
18. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
19. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent
to concerned Trial Court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 16/04/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded on: 17/04/2026
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.604 of 2002 P a g e 20 |20
