Shrikant Singh And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017
--------
1. Shrikant Singh @ Sri Kant Singh, S/o. Mathura Singh;
2. Arjun Sao, S/o. Gobind Saw.
3. Banarasi Sao @ Banarsi Sao, S/o. late Jagdhari Sao.
All are R/o. Vill.- Sagalim, P.O. & P.S.- Panki, Dist.- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…… Opp. Parties
--------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT
th
C.A.V. On: 18 September, 2026 Pronounced On: 30/10/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
A.P.P.
2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment
dated 09.08.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2014 by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and
whereunder, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 143, 353, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. has been upheld which was
st
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Palamau at
Daltonganj in G.R. No. 2530 of 2010 corresponding to T. R. No. 92 of
2014, whereby the petitioners were directed to undergo imprisonment
for 6 months for the offence under Section 143 of the I.P.C. and S.I.
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
for 2 years for the offences under Sections 353, 504 & 506 of the
I.P.C. alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default stipulation, has
been upheld.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that one Alok
Kumar, Circle Officer, Panki, on the basis of inquiry report submitted
by Baidhyanath Singh, Circle Inspector, Panki Block constituted a
team for removal of encroachment with regard to land appertaining to
Khata No. 83, Plot No. 72/1841 measuring total area two decimal
situated in village Sangalim. It is alleged that the team visited the
place of occurrence on 16.12.2010, wherein some anti social elements
in connivance with the present petitioners alongwith 20 unknown
femal/male hurled, abused and assaulted Circle Inspector, Revenue
employees Pugas Ram and Vikash Kumar and also tried to snatch the
chain of Amin and obstructed them in discharging their official duty. It
is further alleged that the accused Srikant Singh (petitioner no. 1) had
already served sentence of imprisonment in jail and used to instigate
common people against administration. It is further alleged that in the
anti encroachment drive in relation to Gair mazurwa aam and Kaisar e
hind government land, a legal notice was also issued against the
present petitioners but they did not vacate the encroached land and
indulged in abusing, assaulting and obstructing in discharge of official
duty of the officers.
4. On the basis of the written report of Circle Officer, Panki,
namely Alok Kumar, dated 16.12.2010, F.I.R. (Panki P.S. Case No.
172 of 2010) was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 353,
2 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
504 & 506 I.P.C. against the above named three petitioners and twenty
unknown male and female miscreants.
5. The investigation was conducted by A.S.I. Thakur Choudhary
of Panki Police Station. In the course of investigation, he visited the
place of occurrence, recorded re-statement of the informant and other
witnesses and also attempted to trace out the other miscreants but no
clue was found, hence finding sufficient evidence against the present
petitioners, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 143, 353, 504 &
506 I.P.C.
6. The learned Trial Court explained the substance of acquisition
to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether, 3 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution, who are as follows:-
1. PW-1: Alok Kumar
2. PW-2: Krishna Manjhi
3. PW-3: Baidhyanath Singh
8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has been adduced by the proseuction:-
I. Ext.-1: Signature of informant and circle officer on the
written report.
II. Ext.-2: Signature of Krishna Manjhi on the report to
Circle Officer.
III. Ext.-3: Signature of Baidyanath Singh on letter no. 75
dated 13.03.2012.
3 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
IV. Ext.-4: Notice of show cause against removal of
encroachment dated 11.12.2010 with direction to appear
on 06.01.2011 at about 11:00 A.M. in the Office of Circle
Officer.
V. Ext.-4/1: Copy of same letter as ext-4.
VI. Ext.-5: Report submitted by Circle Inspector dated
10.12.2010 in respect of encroachment of land by
concerned 24 persons.
9. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from the
occurrence and plea of innocence coupled with false implication.
They have made no encroachment on government land nor have
protested against revenue officials.
10. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence of
prosecution, held the accused persons guilty for the offences under
Sections 143, 353, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and sentenced them accordingly
as stated above.
11. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court, an appeal being Criminal Appeal
No. 13 of 2014 was preferred by the petitioners and the same was
heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at
Daltonganj, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
against the petitioners has been upheld and dismissed the appeal,
which has been assailed in this revision.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:-
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that PW-1
Alok Kumar is the informant and PW-3 Baidhnath Singh is the Circle
4 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
Inspector. PW-1 has lodged this F.I.R. on the basis of report submitted
by PW-3 Baidhnath Singh, Circle Inspector, Halka Karamchari and
the Anchal Amin (PW-2 Krishna Manjhi), that they have been
misbehaved while measuring the land under anti-encroachment drive.
Admittedly, PW-1 & PW-3 were not present at the relevant time of
occurrence and it is categorically stated in the F.I.R. that the present
petitioners and 20 unknown male/female persons have abused and
threatened Circle Inspector (PW-3), revenue Karamchari Pragas Ram,
Vikash Kumar and Anchal Amin Krishna Manjhi (PW-2). It is further
submitted that the informant has categorically admitted in his cross-
examination that he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of report submitted
by C.I. Baidhnath Ram (PW-3) but what report was submitted to him,
which was the basis of F.I.R. has not been proved in this case. He was
not present at the place of occurrence and is not an eye witness of the
occurrence. It is submitted that there is no any overt act about the
petitioners as to what happened with them rather in his cross-
examination, he specifically admitted that the accused persons stated
that they will not stop their construction work over the land in
question. He has stated that when he reached at the place of
occurrence, he saw that several labors were raising construction at the
instance of present petitioners which could not be prevented by them.
There is no whisper about use of any force or violence against the
public servants. It is further submitted that the illegal activity of the
informant is itself revealed from the notice (Ext-4 & 4/1), wherein, it
is mentioned that it is a show cause notice dated 11.12.2010 and the
petitioners were directed to appear in the office of the Circle Officer to
5 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
show their cause on 06.01.2011 at 11:00 A.M. but before expiry of the
aforesaid time given to the petitioner, illegal activity in the name of
anti-encroachment drive was started. Therefore, simple protest, to
save their bona fide possession by the petitioners, cannot amount of
any offence unless their show cause is furnished and rejected by the
concerned authority. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have not gone through the exhibited documents
adduced by the prosecution itself and the testimony of prosecution
witnesses in right perspective and arrived at perverse and absolutely
illegal findings. Therefore, judgment of conviction and sentence of the
petitioners passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the
learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and this revision may
be allowed.
Submission on behalf of the State:-
13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and has submitted that
the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have
very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and scrutinized the
evidence of prosecution and rightly arrived at definite conclusion
about the guilt of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
petitioners were raising construction on government land/Kaiser-e-
hind land and a notice was already issued to the petitioner with regard
to encroachment of the said land. The government officials had gone
at the place of occurrence to measure the land but the petitioners
including 20 female/male persons obstructed in rendering the
government service. Therefore, no such glaring irregularity or error of
6 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
law has been committed by the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court while convicting the petitioners calling for
any interference in this revision. Therefore, this revision has got no
merits and fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, discussion and reasons:-
14. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial
Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of both the parties.
15. It appears that prosecution has examined three witnesses on his
behalf.
PW-1 Alok Kumar is the informant, who has lodged this F.I.R.
on the basis of report submitted by PW-3 Baidhnath Singh, Circle
Inspector, Halka Karamchari and the Anchal Amin (PW-2 Krishna
Manjhi), that they have been misbehaved while measuring the land
under anti-encroachment drive. He has further stated that he has
already given them notice with regard to encroachment of land. He
has proved the contents of the F.I.R. as Ext.-1. It is categorically stated
in the F.I.R. that the present petitioners including 20 unknown
male/female persons have abused and threatened Circle Inspector
(PW-3), revenue Karamchari Pragas Ram, Vikash Kumar and Anchal
Amin Krishna Manjhi (PW-2).
It is further stated that the informant has categorically admitted
in his cross-examination that he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of
report submitted by C.I. Baidhnath Ram (PW-3) but what report was
submitted to him, which was the basis of F.I.R. has not been proved in
7 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
this case. He was not present at the place of occurrence and not is an
eye witness of the occurrence.
PW-2 Krishna Manjhi is the Anchal Amin, who has stated that on
direction of Circle Officer (PW-1 Alok Kumar) (informant) under
anti-encroachment drive, he went to village-Sagalim to measure the
land appertaining to Khata No. 83, Plot No. 72/1841, which is Kaiser-
E-Hind land, encroached by petitioners Banarsi Sao and Arjun Sao.
He alongwith Circle Inspector Baidhnath Singh and Halka
Karamchari Pragas Ram and Vikash Kumar went to the place of
occurrence on 16.12.2010 at about 1:00 P.M., then Banarsi Sao, Arjun
Sao, Shrikant and others about 20 unknown persons started protesting
and started obstructing. He has further stated that the accused persons
stated them that they will not stop their construction work over the
land in question. He has proved his signature on a report submitted
before the Circle Officer marked as Ext.-2.
In his cross-examination, he admits that 8-10 police personals
were also with them but they did not dare to take action against
protestors.
PW-3 Baidhnath Singh is the Circle Inspector of Panki Circle. He
has stated that an encroachment case was lodged against Arjun Sao
and Banarasi Sao by Halka Karamchari and notice was also issued to
them to remove the encroachment but the accused have not removed
the encroachment. On 16.10.2010, a written direction was ordered to
him by Circle Officer with regard to removal of encroachment land.
He has identified the signature of Circle Officer on letter No-75 dated
13.03.2012 which is marked as Ext.-3. He has further proved the
8 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
notice issued to the accused as Ext.-4 & 4/1. He has also proved order
of encroachment case no. 01/10-11 dated 10.12.2010 to 08.04.2011 as
Ext.-5.
He has not stated anything about overt act against the
petitioners. He has stated that when he reached at the place of
occurrence, he saw that several labors were raising construction at the
instance of present petitioners which could not be prevented by them.
There is no whisper about use of any force or violence against the
public servants.
16. On the other hand, defence has neither examined any witness
nor adduced any documentary evidence.
17. From perusal of Ext-4 & Ext.-4/1, it goes to show that notices
were issued to the accused Banarasi Sao and Arjun Sao on
11.12.2010, which is a show cause and ordered them to appear before
the Circle Officer on 06.01.2011 at 11:00 A.M. to explain as why
encroachment be not removed from the land appertaining to Khata
No. 83 Plot No. 72/1841 of village Sagalim but the alleged occurrence
took place on 16.12.2010 at 1:00 P.M., wherein, it was alleged against
the accused persons that they have misbehaved with the government
officials and snatched the chain of Anchal Amin.
18. It further appears from the testimony of the witnesses that there
is no any overt act against the above named accused that they have
assaulted or misbehaved them rather they protested for their
possession. There is no whisper about use of any force or violence
against the public servants. The public servants involved in this case
have illegally approached before time of submission of show cause
9 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)
( 2026:JHHC:31904 )
reply and obstructed the possession of petitioners and this case was
instituted with a view to put undue pressure on alleged accused
persons.
19. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that the
learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have
committed a grave error of law while scrutinizing the documentary
evidence available on record. The prosecution witnesses have also not
reiterated any word with regard to use of force or violence rather the
accused persons have protested only. As such, the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the petitioners passed by the learned
Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is hereby set
aside.
20. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed.
21. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
22. Petitioners are on bail. As such, they are discharged from the
liability of their respective bail bonds and sureties are also discharged.
23. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent
back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 30/10/2026
Rahul/NAFR
Uploaded on: 30/10/2026
10 | P a g e
(Cr. Revision No. 1300 of 2017)