[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Prakash Kumar Hetamsaria vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                       2026:JHHC:10938

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025
                            ----

[Against the judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2025]

----

Prakash Kumar Hetamsaria, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Shyam Sundar Hetamsaria, resident of Doranda Byepass Road, opposite Hotel Yuvraj Palace, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834001 .... .... Appellant(s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jawed Anwar, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Jainul Abedin, R/o Doranda Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... Respondent(s)

----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv.

: Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Adv.

For the State                  : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
For the Resp. No.2            : Mr. Faruque Ansari, Adv.
                              : Mr. Sharukh Ansari, Adv.
                                 ----
By Court:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s), learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2025, whereby and whereunder he has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No.1828 of 2017 arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No.75 of 2017, whereby the trial court has convicted the accused under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of fine, further sentence to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 427 IPC. Further 2026:JHHC:10938

directed to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo S.I. for 10 days for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Earlier, a complaint petition has been filed thereafter that has been sent for lodging an F.I.R. and accordingly, F.I.R. has been lodged being Doranda P.S. Case No.75 of 2017, upon which the investigation has been done and on culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 447/ 427/ 379/ 387 and 34 IPC. The court has framed the charge under Sections 447/ 427/ 406/ 420/ 379/ 387 and 34 IPC to which the accused person has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial has been conducted and on culmination of trial, the accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Being aggrieved, he has preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.209 of 2025, in which the accused has got the judgment of acquittal, which has been impugned in the present acquittal appeal.

5. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether six witnesses have been examined.

P.W.-1 is Uma Shankar Mahto, who has claimed to be an employee of the complainant, namely, Prakash Kr. Hetamsariya. He has stated in his statement that he is residing there since 2016 in constructed two temporary rooms. He has stated that the disturbance has been caused by the accused, namely, Jawed Anwar. Nothing adverse has come in his cross examination.

P.W.-2 is Nagendra Kujur @ Nagendra Oraon. He has stated the same as stated by P.W.-1. He has further stated that the accused person has come for measurement of the land and he used to demolish the boundary wall. No important things has come in his cross examination.

P.W.-3 is the complainant himself i.e. Prakash Kumar Hetamsaria. He has claimed that he has tresspassed and boundary

Page | 2 Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025 2026:JHHC:10938

wall has been demolished. He has further stated that in the year 1985, he has purchased the said land where two storey building was there and that has been demolished. He has further stated that the accused person has used to demolish the boundary wall constructed by them and they were demanding rupees Ten Lac as ransom. In cross-examination, no relevant facts has come on record.

On recall, P.W.-3 has stated that he has filed the complaint petition. In cross- examination, he has also admitted that he has not disclosed the name of witness in his complaint petition. He has also stated that CCTV camera has been installed upon the said land. He has also admitted that there is some discrepancy in the land record as there are two plots in single Khata in the same revenue area.

P.W.-4 is of the Investigating Officer, namely, Vivek Kumar and he has stated regarding the forgery committed by the accused person in his main examination.

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any revenue karamchari or Circle Officer. He has also stated that he has not inspected the disputed place.

On recall, he has admitted that there is no signature on the complaint petition and further no name of the witness has been disclosed in the complaint petition.

P.W.-5 is Raghvendra Singh, is also another Investigating Officer. He has stated that he has inspected the place of occurrence and has recorded the statement of P.Ws.1 & 2. He has disclosed about the boundary wall but he has not stated anything about the construction in the said disputed land. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not taken the statement of Page | 3 Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025 2026:JHHC:10938

any independent witness. He has also admitted although he has made the investigation regarding the issuance of rent receipt but he has not mentioned the same in the case diary.

P.W.-6, namely, Chandrika Paswan (retired S.I.) is another Investigating Officer. He has stated that he has taken the statement of two witnesses, namely, Raj Kumar Pandey and Ravi Dutta but these witnesses have not been examined in the present case. He has admitted in his cross examination that he has not made any investigation regarding the possession of the said piece of land.

6. On the other side, defence has produced one witness as D.W.1, who is the accused himself. He has stated about the title which is not relevant. He has admitted that he has demolished the boundary wall ten times as it was being constructed upon his land.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the witness i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.-2 has clearly stated that they were residing there meaning thereby it was in the possession of P.W.-3, who is the complainant and as such the possession stands proved. The crime under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC is against the possession and since the possession has been proved, hence the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the evidence available on record. On the above argument, the judgment of acquittal has been assailed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has supported the judgment of acquittal stating therein that

i. Even P.W.-3 has not stated anything about the existence of two temporary room there.

ii. P.W.-6, I.O has clearly stated that he has not made any investigation regarding possession.

Page | 4                                                     Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025
                                                                               2026:JHHC:10938

                    iii.     P.W.-5, who is one of the I.O. has inspected the place of

occurrence and has stated nothing about the existence of two room there.

Thus, there is admitted position that there is no independent and corroborative evidence suggesting that the complainant was in the possession of the said piece of land and since it is the crime against the possession, hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable about and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal is justified.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, this Court finds that

i. The offence under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC is against the possession.

ii. Onus is upon the prosecution to prove the possession with the complainant beyond all reasonable doubt. iii. Although, P.Ws.1 & 2 have clearly stated that they were residing there in temporary two rooms at the place of occurrence. But the existence of said rooms has not been corroborated by the complainant himself. iv. He has merely stated that he has demolished the structure and was trying to construct a new room.

v. There is no independent witness examined. Although, the statement of two witnesses have been taken by the I.O., namely, Chandrika Paswan.

vi. The I.O. has clearly admitted that he has not made any investigation regarding the possession of the said piece of land. vii. One of the I.O., who has inspected the place of occurrence has not stated anything about the existence of the temporary rooms there.

10. Thus, this Court finds that there is no enough material recording the finding of conclusive possession with the complainant beyond reasonable doubt.

Page | 5                                                            Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025
                                                                       2026:JHHC:10938

11. In the absence of material available on record and the finding, the prosecution under Sections 427 and 447 of IPC has to fail because it is against the possession.

12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal stands dismissed.

13. 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: 16th April, 2026 Shahid/NAFR Uploaded on 18.04.2026

Page | 6 Acquittal Appeal No.74 of 2025