SHARMA SINGH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32688
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2005 passed by
the learned Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-7, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2003 arising out of Deori P.S. Case No. 48 of 2002.]
---------
Sharma Singh, Son of Gouri Singh, Resident of Village- Purnabathan, P.S.-
Deori, District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
……Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
-----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
st
CAV On: 31 August, 2026 Pronounced On: 06/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 03.09.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-7, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2003 arising out of Deori P.S. Case No. 48 of
2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 1 year.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 27.06.2002 at
about 5:00 A.M. in the morning, the accused Sharma Singh was
ploughing the field of Khata No. 94, (plot no. not known) of the
informant, then the informant reached there and told to the accused as to
2026:JHHC:32688
why he is ploughing her filed, upon which, it is alleged that the accused
started abusing her and knocked down her on the ground by holding her
hair and he also tried to commit rape upon her. In the mean time, her
sister in law (gotni) (PW-1) came there and raised alarm then, the
accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
On the basis of above written report of the informant, F.I.R. (Deori
P.S. Case No. 48 of 2002) was registered against above named accused
for the offence under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the above named accused for the offences under Sections 341,
323 & 376/511 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance, charge was
framed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T.
No. 96 of 2003 was registered.
5. The accused denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to
tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses have been examined by
the prosecution.
Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidence has been adduced on behalf of the prosecution:-
i. Ext.- 1 : Signature of Manjur Alam (PW-2) on the written report.
ii. Ext.-1/1: Endorsement on the fardbeyan.
iii. Ext.-2: Formal F.I.R.
7. On the other hand, defence has neither examined any witness nor
adduced any documentary evidence on his behalf.
2 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
8. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false
implication due to land dispute.
9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well
as documentary led by the prosecution, arrived at definite conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Sections 323 &
376/511 of the I.P.C. but the accused thrashed the informant on ground
while she was protesting against ploughing the field, hence, committed
offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial
Court convicted the accused under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that land dispute and pendency of litigation has
been admitted by the prosecution itself. The prosecution has not filed
any documentary evidence showing that the land in question belongs to
the informant (prosecutrix) or her husband. Except the testimony of
informant (PW-1), no other witnesses have corroborated the prosecution
story. The other eye witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Baleshwar
Hazra (PW-4) and Barku Singh (PW-5), who are independent witnesses,
have categorically stated that when the accused was ploughing his own
field, the informant (PW-7) went to protest there, in the meanwhile,
wife of the accused also arrived there and a scuffle took place between
female folk of both parties. These witnesses have not been declared
hostile by the prosecution and these evidences has been admitted by the
prosecution. Other witnesses are hearsay witnesses from the prosecutrix.
3 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the entire aspect of the case as projected by the prosecution
itself and has ignored the factum of land dispute between the parties,
which was the main cause for false implication of the appellant in this
case and recorded wrong finding about guilt of the appellant even for
the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Therefore, conviction and
sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside
and this appeal may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of State:-
11. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by
learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly
scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The informant-
cum-prosecutrix, herself, is the sole witness for proving the charge
levelled against the accused for the offence under Section 354 of the
I.P.C. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any
interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
4 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
13. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any
serious error or law calling for any interference or not?
14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with
the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.
15. The most important witness in this case is the informant-cum-
prosecutris, who has been examined as PW-7. According to her
evidence, when she was protesting against the ploughing of her field by
the accused, then the accused started abusing her and thrashed her down
on the ground through her hair and also started humiliating her.
Meanwhile, her gotni (sister-in-law)(PW-1) arrived there and saved her
by raising alarm.
In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion of defence
that due to land dispute with the accused, she has lodged this false case.
PW-1 Manjhli Devi is gotni (sister-in-law) of the prosecutrix
(informant) who projected herself as an eye witness and she has stated
that she alongwith her gotni (PW-7) went to her field, which was being
ploughed by the accused. When it was protested by her gotni (PW-7),
then the accused caught her and attempted to commit rape upon her.
Upon raising alarm, the villagers assembled and the accused fled away.
But, on the above part of the testimony, this witness has specifically
contradicted by the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-7) in her cross-
examination, wherein she has specifically stated that in her statement
before the police, she has stated that when she raised alarm, then her
gotni (PW-1) came there and saved her.
5 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
PW-2 Manjur Alam is a hearsay witness, who was working at his
own field, then in the way prosecutrix came to tell him about the
occurrence of indecent and assault committed by the accused Sharma
Singh with her. This witness has also scribed written report of the
victim.
PW-3 Manzo Singh is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix. He
also came to know about the occurrence from his bhabhi (prosecutrix)
and he is not an eye witness of the occurrence.
He has admitted in his cross-examination that prior to his incident,
they were in litigating terms with the accused.
PW-4 Baleshwar Hazra & PW-5 Barku Singh have stated that
when the accused was ploughing his own field, the informant (PW-7)
went to protest there, in the meanwhile, wife of the accused also arrived
there and a scuffle took place between female folk of both parties.
In their cross-examination, both of them have stated that there was
land dispute between the parties since long time.
PW-6 Babu Singh has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
PW-8 Jaideo Raut is the formal witness and advocate clerk, who
has proved endorsement on F.I.R. as Ext.-2 and endorsement on written
report as Ext.-1/1.
16. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from the occurrence
and plea of innocence. No any witness has been examined on behalf of
the defence.
17. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
and the documentary evidence available on record.
6 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
18. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is
apparent that land dispute was existing between the parties. It is also
admitted fact that land was being ploughed by the appellant at the
relevant time of occurrence. The prosecutrix has not brought on record
any relevant documents showing her ownership or possession over the
disputed land. The prosecutrix alleged that she was abused and thrashed
on ground but PW-4 and PW-5, who are the independent witnesses,
have categorically stated that when the prosecutrix (PW-7) was
protesting against ploughing of field by the present accused, his wife
also arrived there and scuffle took place in between lady and nothing
has happened at the instance of the appellant. These witnesses have not
been declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, two views are
possible in this case, first one goes in favor of appellant, showing his
innocence and has committed no offence at all and another view is
against the appellant. It is settled principle of law that if two views are
possible, benefit shall always go to the accused.
19. The learned Trial Court has not considered over all aspects of the
prosecution evidence properly and in right perspective and arrived at
wrong conclusion. It is a case of land dispute between the parties and
the appellant has been falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court has
committed serious error of law while convicting the appellant under
Section 354 of the I.P.C. Therefore, there is no reason to sustain the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial
Court.
7 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)
2026:JHHC:32688
20. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is
hereby set aside.
21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed .
22. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
23. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
24. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be
sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 06/11/2026
Rahul- NAFR
Uploaded On: 06/11/2026
8 | P a g e (Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1495 of 2005)