Patna High Court
Nirja Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 9 January, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.349 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2012 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Nirja Yadav W/O Birendra Kumar Yadav R/O- Navinchandra Ganguli Lane,
Bari Khanjarpur, P.S.- Barari, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sukhi Kewat S/O Late Bhagirath Kewat R/V- Balnat, P.S.- Islampur,
District- Nalanda
3. Anjani Kumar S/O Arjun Kewat R/V- Purandarpur, P.S.- Tharathari, District-
Nalanda
4. Sanjay Kumar S/O Rajeshwar Prasad R/V- Panchwa, P.S.- Neemchak
Bathani, District- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-01-2024
I.A. No. 01 of 2023
This application is filed by the appellant under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 54
days caused in filing the present appeal.
2. For the reason as mentioned in para-4 of the I.A.,
the delay of 54 days caused in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
3. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No. 01 of
2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
2/8
Cr. APP(SJ) No. 349 of 2023
4. The present appeal filed on behalf of the appellant
under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has
been directed against the order of acquittal dated 17.08.2022
rendered by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II,
Biharsharif, Nalanda in Session Case No. 292/2014, arising out
of Bihar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2012, whereby the present three
respondents/accused have been acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and
learned APP appearing for the State.
6. That the prosecution story is in brief that on
24.07.2022
at 12:25 P.M, informant made statement before the
police that Geeta Devi and Dheeraj Kumar has given Rs. 3 lakhs
to Sukhi Kewat alongwith other criminals for killing informant
at Registry Office, Biharsharif. On the basis of this information
police blocked Registry Office and started to search Sukhi
Kewat and others where, Subodh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar
were standing with motorcycle after identification by informant,
Sukhi Kewat and one other person were caught by the police in
the meantime Sanjay Kumar and Subodh Kumar tried to fled
away. Sanjay Kumar was caught by the police and Subodh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
Kumar succeeded fled away. Sukhi Kewat sustained minor
injuries during the arrest. It is further alleged that reason for the
incident was that Minta Devi @ Gita Devi, the second wife of
Late K.D. Singh has suspicion that her step daughter Nirja Devi
and Soutan Ram Payari Devi has executed 54 decimal land
situated at Rajgir Nahar.
7. After recording aforesaid information, the formal
FIR came to be registered before the concerned police station
and the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation,
during the course of which, the Investigating Officer has
recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the
documentary evidence. After the investigation was concluded,
the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the
respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections
115, 116 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC).
8. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had
examined only one prosecution witness, namely, Nirja Yadav.
9. The further statement of the respondents-accused
under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After the
conclusion of trial, the Trial Court acquitted the
respondents/accused through impugned judgment from the
charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved, with aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
order of acquittal, appellant preferred the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant
submitted that learned trial court without examining the
important witnesses concluded the trial. It is submitted that
only one prosecution witness namely, Nirja Yadav was
examined in this case who specifically stated before the Court
that Mahendra Yadav called her on mobile that criminals were
hired by Dhiraj Kumar and Geeta Devi against cash of Rs. 3
lakh to kill her. She also stated that respondent no. 2 Sukhi
Kewat, respondent no. 3 Anjani Kumar and respondent no. 3
Sanjay Kumar were conspiring to kill them in registry office of
Biharsharif. She also stated about pending litigation between
the parties. It is submitted that said witness supported the
occurrence but it was not relied upon by the Court, therefore,
judgment of acquittal as recorded by learned trial court is bad in
the eyes of law. It is also submitted that learned trial court
ignored the testimony of said prosecution witness only for the
reason that fact was supported during trial by only one witness,
which is apparent from the impugned judgment itself as it is
mentioned in para 12 itself: "इस तरह सस एकममत समकक कम समकय कम
ककई समककयक ममलय नहह हह।"
11. In view of above, it is submitted that the finding of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
learned trial court is bad in the eyes of law.
12. Heard learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State also.
13. It appears from the perusal of records that the trial
was pending before the learned trial court for long seven years
where only one prosecution witness PW-1, namely, Nirja Yadav
was examined. It also appears from the record that sufficient
opportunities were given to prosecution as to procure its
witnesses to substantiate its case during the trial but prosecution
failed to produce them. On the basis of the testimony of only
witness, namely, Nirja Yadav (PW-1), it appears, from her
examination-in-chief that she was present in registry office of
Biharsharif district, where respondents Sukhi Kewat, Anjani
Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were conspiring to kill them. It also
appears from her deposition that as respondents came near to
this witness to kill her, police chased them and arrested, where
one of the co-accused Subodh ran away. It was deposed that
occurrence was to grab her property. She specifically deposed
that one Geeta Devi and Dhiraj Kumar to grab property of her
mother which also belongs to her, hired respondent persons
against cash of Rs. 3 lakh. She also stated as to lodge a case
against respondent persons by her mother Ram Pyari Devi on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
05.06.2012 in Islampur Police Station but interestingly, during
cross-examination, she stated that she came to know about the
occurrence from one Mahendra Yadav, who called her to come
at Bihar Police Station, where she came from Bhagalpur. She
failed to disclose the mobile no. from which she received call of
Mahendra Yadav. She also stated in her cross-examination that
no occurrence took place before her.
14. It would be appropriate to reproduce Para-42 of
the report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of
Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4
SCC 415.
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
Court on the evidence before it may reach its
own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial
and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
grounds', 'very strong circumstances',
'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes',
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate Court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of 'flourishes of language'
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate
Court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the Court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court."
15. No doubt conviction can be recorded on the basis
of testimony of single witness but same must inspire such
confidence and appears trustworthy. In present case the only
witness, which was examined on behalf of prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.349 of 2023 dt.09-01-2024
contradicts her own version as deposed during examination-in-
chief by stating in cross-examination that she came to know
about the occurrence from one Mahendra Yadav by reducing his
claim as an eye witness as deposed in examination-in-chief to
that of hearsay witness. She also categorically stated that
nothing happened before her. Merely on the basis of this much
evidence, finding of acquittal cannot be disturbed.
16. Hence, in view of aforesaid factual and legal
discussions, the present appeal, which is preferred against
acquittal, is dismissed herewith, at admission stage itself.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Archana/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.01.2024
Transmission Date 11.01.2024
