COURT ROOM OBSERVATION REPORT

RESEARCH PROJECT

OF

MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR. SHREEMANSHU DASH & MRS. DIPSHI SWARA DHEERAJ JANGID

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND TEACHING ASSISTANT 990, SEM X ‘A’

NUSRL, RANCHI NUSRL, RANCHI

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. CHAPTERIZATION PAGE NO.

1. DAY 1 (04/03/2024) 3

2. DAY 2 (05/03/2024) 5

3. DAY 3 (06/03/2024) 8

4. DAY 4 (07/03/2024) 10

5. OVERALL EXPERIENCE 13

2
 DAY 1 (04/03/2024)

CASE 1

Case Name : Ram Bahadur Singh vs Arun Kachchap and Ors.

Case Number :G.R. Case No. 1327/2014

Name and Designation of Court : Krishna Kant Mishra, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi

Petitioner Counsel: Ms. Nikhar Barnwal, Ld. APP.

Respondent Counsel : Shri R. Sahay, Ld. Adv.

Legal Provision : Section 147, 148, 353/149, 332/149, 120B of Indian Penal Code.

Facts : On the date of occurrence an assembly was going to be organized and Chief Minister was
to address the said assembly. Almost 100 people gathered at the place of occurrence and were
protesting Master Plan which was led by accused Amit Bhagat and Sandeep Oraon. They were
leading from Patratu to Dubalia taking deadly weapon in hands. Seeing the situation, informant
tried to pacify the crowd but crowd started assaulting the police party. In crowd, accused persons
were present. Somehow, informant tried to stop the crowd, crowd sat on road and obstructed the
Boreyachandwe road. Crowd was raising slogan to take back master plan due to which there was
hindrence for discharging of official duty to the police party. Hence, the present case has been
lodged.

Issues : Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the accused of this
case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts or not?

Arguments Advanced : On behalf of the accused, Ld. counsel submitted that accused persons
have been falsely implicated this case though they are totally innocent and have not committed
any offence. It is further submitted by him that in this case out of eight chargesheeted
witnesses, prosecution has examined only three witnesses, out of them two have not supported

3
the case of prosecution and declared hostile by the prosecution. He submitted and prayed that
there is no any relevant and cogent evidence available on record against the accused. Therefore,
accused persons in this case deserve to be acquitted.

On the other hand, Ld. APP appearing for state kept mum and conceded with the argument of
Ld. defence counsel.

Judgment : The prosecution has not succeeded to bring home the charges against the accused
persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. So accused persons are acquitted.

CASE 2

Case Name : State vs. Ranjan Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case Number : G.R. Case No. 3256/2012

Name and Designation of Court : Dhriti Dhairya, Judicial Magistrate First Class IV, Judicial
Magistrate First Class IV, Ranchi

Petitioner Counsel : Shri Sidharth Singh, Ld. APP

Respondent Counsel: Shri Ramlakhan Sao

Legal Provision : Section 171(F) IPC and 3/4 Bihar/Jharkhand Prevention of

Facts : Case filed against A1 Ranjan Kumar Singh and A2 Anand Kumar Singh for violating
election code of conduct by raising congress party flags in public space.

Judgment : Both accused acquitted due to lack of evidence against them. Prosecution failed to
prove charges.

4
 DAY 2 (05/03/2024)

CASE 1

Case Name : Ejhar Ansari vs State of Jharkhand

Case Number :Criminal Appeal No. 28/2024

Name and Designation of Court : Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi

Appellant Counsel : Smt. Kalpana Sinha, Ld. Advocate.

Respondent Counsel : Sri Anil Singh, Ld P.P.

Legal Provision : Section 498A of IPC.

Facts : The complaint cum written report in brief is that on 03.06.16, the appellant forcibly
established sexual relation with her on pretext of marriage and threatened not to disclose it to any
one. Later on the marriage of complainant was solemnized with appellant Ejhar Ansari on
18.06.16. It is further stated that after marriage she went to her matrimonial house and lead
happy married life for some days but thereafter misfortune crept into life and her husband and in
laws started demanding dowry of ₹ 2,00,000/- and when their demand was not fulfilled, she was
subjected to cruelty and kept under starvation. It is specific case of complainant that her husband
and in laws thrown her into the well and on 15.09.16 and forced to drink Phenyl. Under aforesaid
background the complainant approached the court by filing written complaint against the
appellant and others and accordingly criminal law is set into motion.

Issues : Whether judgment passed by learned lower court in the facts and circumstances, is
sustainable in the eye of law as well as in the facts or not?

Arguments Advanced : Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also assailed the impugned
judgment on the ground that learned court below has failed to notice material contradictions in
the testimony of the witnesses and without any corroborative piece of evidence arrived at

5
erroneous conclusion which is not in consonance with established tenets of criminal
jurisprudence which recognizes that in order to sustain conviction the prosecution is required to
prove its case beyond doubts. Learned counsel further submits that independent witnesses have
not supported the case of prosecution and thus rendered it unbelievable and hence it is not worth
acceptance in the eye of law. Therefore, relying upon the submissions enumerated above, it is
contended by learned counsel that in the light of infirmities as pointed above the impugned
judgment and sentence passed by learned court is liable to be set aside and the appellants are
entitled to be acquitted.

The learned counsel for respondent submitted that judgment and sentence passed by learned
lower court does not require any interference as it is based upon clinching and inspiring evidence
available on record. It is further submitted that factum of committing cruelty is duly proved by
the testimony of informant/victim and at the same time it stands corroborated with the testimony
of other witnesses. Therefore, having placed reliance over submission made above, it is
submitted by learned P.P. that this criminal appeal is devoid of merit and hence fit to be
dismissed.

Judgment : The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against the
appellant under Section 498A Indian Penal Code by credit worthy evidence and
thus not been able to prove the same beyond shadow of doubts. So, after giving
thoughtful consideration to the evidence available on record as well as having
regard to the argument of both the sides, coupled with the infirmities as pointed
above, the Court is of the opinion that appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

CASE 2

Case Name : State vs. Kunal Kishor Sinha

Case Number : GR Case No. 1899/2023

Name and Designation of Court : Ruchi Dayal, Judicial Magistrate –XXVII, Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.

6
Petitioner : Ld. APP Smt. M. Kandulna

Respondent : C.K. Dixit

Legal Provision : Section 323/34, 341/34, 354/34, 504/34 and 509/34 of IPC

Facts : Case filed based on complaint of informant Amrita Kumari alleging accused
Kunal Kishore Sinha demanded her to lower volume of songs, leading to scuffle.

Judgment : Accused acquitted of charges u/s 323/34, 341/34, 504/34 and

7
 DAY 3 (06/03/2024)

CASE 1

Case Name : State vs Suraj Chauhan Singh

Case Number : POCSO Case No. 124/2022

Name and Designation of Court : Asif Equbal, A. J. C. - IV -cum- Special Judge POCSO,
Ranchi

Petitioner Counsel : Smt. Pushpa Sinha, Ld. Special P. P. I/C

Respondent Counsel: Smt. Pushpawati Kumari Ld. Advocate

Legal Provision : Section 363,370,372,376(D),506 of IPC and Section 4,6,8 of POCSO Act and
Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

Facts : The informant/ sister of victim given a written report to the Officer In-charge, Chutia P.S.
on 17.11.2021 and stated therein that her younger sister who was resided at her father's home at
village Goswami-tola, Balidih, Bokaro was proceeded from Bokaro to Ranchi without any
information to her parents. Thereafter, she was living anywhere in Ranchi. It is further alleged
that after two weeks her younger sister called her through mobile no. 8369794082 stating that
she is now at Panji-Goa and stated her to help and take up free her from that place. On the basis
of written report of the informant Chutia
Police instituted a case vide Chutia P.S. Case No. 172/2021 u/s 363 of IPC
against unknown.

Issues : Whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish its case against the
aforesaid accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not?

Arguments Advanced : The prosecution has adduced his evidence and after closer of
prosecution evidence, statement of the aforesaid accused person was recorded U/s 313 of Cr.P.C.

8
on 29.02.2024 to which he denied to commit alleged offence and taken plea of his innocence and
further claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case.

The defence has not brought any oral or documentary

Judgment : The prosecution has failed to proved the charge against the accused person beyond
all reasonable doubt. In the result accused Suraj Chauhan Singh is hereby not found guilty for the
offence u/s. 363, 370, 372, 376(D), 506 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 8 of POCSO Act and Section 5
of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and he is hereby acquitted.

CASE 2

Case Name : Ranjeet Deo vs Rajesh Kumar

Case Number : O.S. No.166/2020

Name and Designation of Court : Neeraj Kumar, Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, Civil Judge (Sr.
Division)-V, Ranchi.

Plaintiff Counsel: Sri Prashant Pallav

Defendant Counsel : Sri Sanjiv Kumar

Legal Provision : Suit for partition and possession over ancestral property

Facts : Plaintiff filed suit seeking 1/3rd share and possession over ancestral properties.
Defendants are his brothers. Parties settled dispute amicably before Mediation Centre, Civil
Court, Ranchi.

Judgment : Suit was decreed as per terms of settlement agreement dated 21.08.2023
executed between parties before Mediation Center, Civil Court, Ranchi.

9
 DAY 4 (07/03/2024)

CASE 1

Case Name : Charku Malik vs State of Jharkhand

Case Number :Criminal Appeal No. 13/2024

Name and Designation of Court : Diwakar Pandey, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi

Appellant Counsel : Ishteyaque Ahmad, Ld Advocate.

Respondent Counsel : Sri – A. K. Singh, Ld. P.P.

Legal Provision : Section 380 IPC.

Facts : The written report of informant Kalim Malik in brief is that on 03.01.16 at about 09:00
P.M. when informant along with other family members was watching T.V., this accused
appellant arrived there and thereafter taken out ₹ 4,400/- from the pocket of the pant. On being
raised hullah the accused appellant tried to flee away but apprehended and on being interrogated
admitted his guilt. Having aforesaid allegations the criminal law was set into motion, in the light
of written report of informant and accordingly, this case was registered followed by
investigation. After framing the charges under Section 380 Indian Penal Code on 16.06.17, the
witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution were examined and after finding their testimony
consistent and credible the court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as indicated
above.

Issues : 1. Whether learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record
in right perspective and held guilty without their being consistent, credible and cogent evidence.

Arguments Advanced : The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment on the ground that learned lower court below completely failed to take note

10
of contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. Also, assailed the sentence passed by court below
and submitted that despite the fact that there was no proof of previous conviction, the appellant
was sentenced substantively which is against the mandate of Probation of Offenders Act.
Learned counsel of the appellant submitted that the judgment and sentence passed by learned
lower court does not require any interference and hence being devoid of merit fit to be dismissed.

Judgment : The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.23 passed against the
appellant by learned Court below appears to be without genesis and not sustainable in the eye of
law. hence stands set aside. Resultantly, this criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is
allowed and the convict/appellant is hereby acquitted.

CASE 2

Case Name : State vs. Suresh Tirkey and Ors.

Case Number : G.R. Case No. 263/2016

Name and Designation of Court : Praveen Oraon, Judicial Magistrate-X , Ranchi

Petitioner Counsel : Sh. Panchanand Kumar , Ld. APP.

Respondent Counsel: Ajay Kr. Sinha, Ld. Advocate.

Legal Provision : Sections 143, 323, 447 & 504 & 506 of I.P.C.

Facts : The informant’s ancestral land bearing khata no. 49, plot no. 1253 total an area 56
decimals is situated under Hehal mouza. Accused namely Aman Singh, Krishna Singh, Dharmu
Oraon, Sukra Oraon, Ganjhu Oraon, Ajay Singh, Suresh Oraon and other persons were trying to
forcibly possess over the land of the same. On 06.01.2015 all above named accused persons
having arms reached over the land and has assaulted to them and as well as threatens to kill.

Issues : The question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges leveled against the accused persons beyond the shadow of all
reasonable doubts or not ?

11
Arguments Advanced : The case of the defence is total denial of the prosecution case. It is
submitted that the informant has not supported the prosecution case and matter has been
compromised out of the court and thus the accused person deserved to be acquitted.

On the other hand the prosecution has submitted that it has produced and examined the informant
who is the main witness of the case and also conceded the fact about entering into compromise
between informant and the accused person.

Judgment : The accused persons, namely, Suresh Tirkey, Sukra Tirkey, Krishna Singh and
Dharmu Oraon are not found guilty for the charges u/s 323, 447, 504, 506 & 143 Indian Penal
Code Indian Penal Code.

12
 OVERALL EXPERIENCE

The four-day courtroom visit to Ranchi was an immersive experience that provided invaluable
insights into the workings of the judicial system. Each day brought forth a different aspect of
legal proceedings, ranging from criminal trials to civil disputes and family court matters.
Witnessing these diverse cases allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the complexities
involved in administering justice.

One of the most striking aspects of the visit was witnessing the adherence to courtroom
procedures and the meticulous management by the presiding judges. Regardless of the nature of
the case, the judges demonstrated a commitment to fairness, ensuring that both parties were
given equal opportunity to present their arguments and evidence. This underscored the
importance of procedural integrity in safeguarding the rights of all individuals involved in legal
proceedings.

Furthermore, observing the advocacy skills of attorneys from both the prosecution and defense
sides was enlightening. Each attorney presented their case with precision and eloquence,
employing legal arguments and citing relevant precedents to support their positions. This
highlighted the critical role of legal advocacy in shaping the outcome of a case and underscored
the significance of competent legal representation in ensuring a fair trial.

Moreover, witnessing the judges' role in facilitating mediation and alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms in family court cases was particularly insightful. It underscored the judiciary's
commitment to resolving disputes amicably and prioritizing the best interests of the parties
involved, especially in emotionally charged matters such as child custody disputes. This
highlighted the importance of a compassionate and empathetic approach in family court
proceedings.

Overall, the courtroom visit reaffirmed the vital role of an impartial and efficient judiciary in
upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice for all citizens. It underscored the
judiciary's responsibility to uphold the principles of fairness, equity, and procedural justice in

13
adjudicating disputes and safeguarding the rights of individuals. The experience left a lasting
impression, emphasizing the importance of a robust judicial system in maintaining the fabric of
society and fostering trust in the legal process.

14