[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bisheshwar Gour @ Bisheswar Gour vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                    2026:JHHC:10787

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Acquittal Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024
                          ---------

[Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2022]

---------

Bisheshwar Gour @ Bisheswar Gour, aged about 65 years, son of Late Purno Chandra Gour, resident of Road No.1, Sonkosai, Dimna Road, Mango, P.O. - Ulidih, P.S. - Mango, Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.

..... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dashrath Kauntia, son of Late Satya Narayan Kauntia, resident of Discovery Diagnostics, Telephone Exchange Road, New Baradwari, P.O. - Sakchi, P.S. - Sitaramdera, Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.

..... Respondents

---------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. S. L. Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate

---------

Order No.06/ Dated: 16th April, 2026

1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P and Mr. S. L.

Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the

complainant/ appellant against the judgment of acquittal

dated 27.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge - IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.162

of 2022, whereby and whereunder the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 03.09.2022, passed

-1- Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024 2026:JHHC:10787

by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.69 of

2013 (TR No.07 of 2022), has been set aside so far as

respondent No.02, namely, Dasrath Kauntia is concerned

and accordingly he has been acquitted and discharged

from the liability of his bail bond. Although co-accused

namely, Bharat Gope, has been convicted.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging

a complaint case being Complaint Case No.69 of 2013 by

the appellant-complainant against four accused persons

namely, Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope

(deceased), Bharat Gope and Dashrath Kauntia, the present

respondent No.2.

4. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the

complaint, is that on 28.10.2012, all the four above named

persons along with others came to the disputed land and

started removing bushes & other materials. The

complainant party tried to stop them but they started

abusing. Dashrath Kauntia told that he had purchased the

said land from Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope

(deceased) & Bharat Gope. The complainant came to know

that the Sale Deed No.2530/2184/2009 dated 28.03.2009

for land situated in Plot Nos.5821 & 5822, New Plot

No.2159, Khata No 431 (Old Khata No. 548), admeasuring

Area 69.72 Decimal (0.69.72 acres) has been executed by

Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) &

Bharat Gope in favour of Shushil Kumar Singh and

-2- Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024 2026:JHHC:10787

Shrikant Singh. He also came to know that a General

Power of Attorney bearing Registration No.3512/702/2012

dated 06.06.2012 for land situated at Khata No.226, Plot

No.2159/4387, Area measuring 19.80 Decimal, 0.07.70

Hectare, 12 Kathas, was executed by Luthi Gour

(deceased), Satrughan Gope (deceased) & Bharat Gope in

favour of Dashrath Kauntia. It is also stated that vide

judgment dated 24.02.1990 passed by Learned Additional

District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 24/5 of

1985-88, Luthi Gour (deceased), Satrughan Gope

(deceased) & Bharat Gope were entitled to 72.0 Decimal

land i.e., in Plot No.5821 area 0.24 Decimal & Plot No.5822

area 0.48 Decimal. But, they had executed both the

documents including 17.52 Decimals (0.17.52 acres)

Excess land without legal rights and with ulterior motive

and wrongful gain. It further alleged that after the death of

his father, the complainant has been in possession of the

said land since 28.10.2012 and the accused persons were

trying to dispossess him illegally.

After conducting enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

vide order dated 26.07.2013, learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur

found sufficient ground to proceed under Section 420 IPC

against all the accused persons as mentioned in the

Complaint Petition. Accordingly, summon was issued. After

appearance of the accused persons, the evidence before

charge as per Section 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Vide order

dated 13.10.2015 charge under Section 420 IPC was

-3- Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024 2026:JHHC:10787

framed against the accused persons.

To substantiate the prosecution story, only the

complainant has been examined and certain documents

have been proved.

On the basis of evidence on record, the trial court

vide judgment dated 03.09.2022 has found the accused

persons including the respondent No.2 guilty and convicted

them for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them R.I. for two

years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) each

with default stipulation of imprisonment for two months.

5. Being aggrieved by the trial court judgment, the

respondent No.2 namely, Dashrath Kauntia and another

accused namely, Bharat Gope have preferred Criminal

Appeals being Cr. Appeal Nos.162 of 2022 & 153 of 2022,

respectively, in the appellate court i.e., in the court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Jamshedpur and

vide judgment dated 27.05.2024, the appellate court has

acquitted the respondent No.02 namely, Dashrath Kauntia

whereas the conviction of the accused namely, Bharat Gope

has been sustained.

6. The appellate court, while acquitting the respondent

No.2, has assigned the reason that there is no mental

element i.e. mens rea / knowledge for the offence under

Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as under :-

"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything

-4- Acq. Appeal (C) No.22 of 2024 2026:JHHC:10787

which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

The basic ingredients of Section 420 IPC is

dishonestly induce or deceive any person.

7. The appellate court, on evaluation of evidence, has

recorded the finding that there was a civil dispute between

the parties and the respondent No.2 was not a party to the

dispute, rather the appellant-complainant was a party to

the civil dispute. Thus, there is no evidence on record at

all, suggesting that the respondent No.2 has any

knowledge, regarding the status of the land. He has merely

acted on the basis of power of attorney assigned to him.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent

No.2 has acted dishonestly and as such the appellate court