Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Pramila Devi, W/o. Pratul Bhuiyan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 597 of 2009
Decided On : 06-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Appeal
Act Referred
ARMS ACT : S.25(1)(b), S.25(1)(b)(a), S.26, S.26(a), S.27
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT : S.17
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution must establish active participation or membership in an unlawful group to secure a conviction; association by marriage or mere presence at the site of an encounter does not constitute proof of guilt. (Paras 40, 43, 44)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was apprehended at the site of an encounter between law enforcement and an armed group. At the time of arrest, the appellant was found with a young child. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was an active member of the group, though no specific overt act was attributed to her. The trial court convicted the appellant based on her presence and association with the group.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the appellant's active participation or membership in the organization. The court noted that the appellant's presence at the scene, accompanied by a young child, did not establish common intention or criminal liability.
Issues: Whether the appellant's presence at the scene of an encounter and her marital relationship with an alleged member of an armed group are sufficient to establish criminal liability for the offences charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal conviction requires proof of active participation or specific overt acts. Mere presence at the scene of a crime, especially when accompanied by a young child, and association by marriage are insufficient to establish guilt under the principle of common intention.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's grounds for appeal and lack of overt acts. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. evidence summarized from prosecution witnesses (raiding party). (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. appellant's statement under section 313 and defense evidence. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 4. evaluation of witnesses' testimonies and investigative inconsistencies. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. assessment of criminal liability based on mere presence. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 6. acquittal due to lack of evidence for conviction. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2007 and order of sentence dated 09.04.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No.143/2004 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for committing the offences under Sections 307, 353, 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 25(1-B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and she has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 years under Section 26 of the Arms Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307/34 of IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 353 of IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 412 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, except the fines imposed and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months.
2. After conclusion of hearing in the case, the learned counsel for the State has filed a copy of the custody report of the appellant. As per the Report received vide Letter No.2985 dated 04.04.2026 issued by the Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, the appellant was in jail custody from 12.01.2004 to 08.04.2007 (03 years 02 months 27 days) during investigation and trial and from 09.04.2007 to 03.05.2008 (01 years 00 months 25 days) after conviction i.e. for a total period of 04 years 03 months 22 days as actual custody in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and on 03.05.2008, she was transferred to the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Lohardaga.
3. As per the Report received vide Letter No.432/Jail, Lohardaga issued by the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Lohardaga, the appellant was in jail custody there from 03.05.2008 to 07.09.2011 i.e. for a period of 03 years 04 months 05 days and after completion of the sentences imposed upon her and after payment of the fine amounts, the appellant has already been released from jail on 08.09.2011.
4. Accordingly, the appellant has already served the entire substantial sentences imposed upon her and after payment of the fine amounts, she has already been released from jail on 08.09.2011.
5. The prosecution case is based on the basis of the self-statement of S.I. Naval Kishore Prasad, Officer-in-charge, Bishunpur P.S. recorded on 11.01.2004 at 11:15 hours at Village- Ninar, P.S.- Bishunpur, District Gumla alleging that after the attack by extremists in the night of 08.01.2004, the Informant alongwith Havaldar Sushil Choudhary of JAP-6, Constable No. 339 Yogendra Sharma, Constable No. 164 Keval Prasad Yadav, constable No. 352 Satyendra Narayan, Police 416 Satyadeo Oraon, Police 373 Jagannath Sharma, A.S.I. Turta Xalxo and Assistant Commander of CRPF and two platoons of C.R.P.F. proceeded to Villages Daduapahi, Tewarpani, Jobhipat, Ninar, etc. for conducting raid and search operation at 04:00 AM. After reaching Bage Sakhua turning on 11.01.2004 at about 05:30 AM, the Informant sent the vehicles back to the Gurdari Mines picket. After checking t
