Patna High Court
Ramjari Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 11 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.459 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2003 Thana- PAUTHU District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Ramjari Devi, aged about 72 years, W/o Late Ram Narayan Singh Prabhaker
@ Ram Narayan Sharma, Resident of Village Barki English , P.S. Pauthu,
Distt. Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rampravesh Sharma, S/o Yamuna Sharma
3. Pinku Sharma
4. Manoj Sharma, both sons of Rampravesh Sharma,
5. Narsingh Sharma, s/o Ambika Sharma
6. Arvind Sharma,
7. Niranjan Sharma, both sons of Narsingh Sharma,
all residents of village Fesra Tola, Bari English, P.S.-Pauthu, District-
Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. A. K. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 11-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
judgment of acquittal dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.213 of 2004
arising out of Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of 2003, whereby
Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted by the learned Trial
Court from the charge of Sections 148, 307/149, 386 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
2/10
Indian Penal Code and respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 have also
been acquitted from the charge of Sections 436/34 & 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Vide order dated 20.07.2024, trial court records was
called for, which was received on 14.08.2024.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
16.12.2003
, at about 07:30 A.M., the accused persons, namely,
Ram Pravesh Singh armed with a gun, Manoj Sharma, Pinku
Sharma, Narsingh Sharma, Arvind Sharma & Niranjan Sharma,
all with lathi, came at the Dalan of Ram Narayan Sharma
(informant). Rampravesh Sharma pointed the gun at the
informant's chest and threatened him to put his signature on two
stamp papers, due to fear the informant put his signature on two
stamp papers and two blank papers also. Thereafter, all the
accused persons went from there. It is further alleged that when
the informant narrated the occurrence to his wife (Ramjari Devi)
and son (Upendra), his son went to the accused persons and told
them to return all the signed papers, upon which, the accused
persons assaulted him with fist and legs and twisted his neck.
On hulla, Ramjari Devi came to save him but she was also
assaulted by the accused Manoj Sharma with lathi hitting her
hand and arm also. Further, Ram Pravesh Sharma ordered the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
other accused perons to set the house of the informant on fire
with his family members and tied a rope around the neck of
Ramjari Devi and dragged her. Arvind and Manoj Sharma took
out the matchsticks from their pockets and set the house on fire.
On hulla, some villagers came to the place of occurrence and
saved the informant's family members, and all accused persons
fled away from there.
4. On the basis of written complaint of the informant,
Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of 2003 was instituted under Sections
147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 323, 354, 436, 307, 348 & 386 of the
Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the police.
The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against
Respondent Nos.2 to 7 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether 17 witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Ramjari Devi, PW-2
Upendra Sharma, PW-3 Lakhan Yadav, PW-4 Urmila Devi, PW-
5 Ram Narayan Sharma, PW-6 Dr. Sajjan Kumar Mishra, PW-7
Surendra Ram, PW-8 Surendra Prasad Singh, PW-9, Baliram
Ram, PW-10 Birendra Ram, PW-11 Sukhdeo Ram, PW-12
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
Lakhan Ram, PW-13 Nagendra Singh, PW-14 Dinesh Sharma,
PW-15 Harihar Ram, PW-16 Bhola Prasad and PW-17 Phekan
Ram. The prosecution has also produced certain exhibits
(Fardbeyan, Injury report of Ramjari Devi, Injury report of
Ramjari Devi, Injury report of Upendra Sharma, Injury report of
Upendra Sharma, Formal FIR of Pauthu P.S. Case No.171 of
2003, Endorsement on fardbeyan Charge-sheet, Supplementary
charge-sheet, Charge-sheet no.31 of 2003 dated 30.05.2003 in
connection with Pauthu P.S. Case No.114 of 2003, Certified
copy of order/judgment passed in Gr. 1558 of 2003, Tr. 1392 of
2014). The defence has also produced certain exhibits (Sale
deed by Pundeo Pathak, Sale deed by Sanjay Narayan Singh,
Evidence of Ramjari Devi in S.Tr. No.93 of 2003, Evidence of
Urmila Devi in S.Tr. No.93 of 2003, Evidence of Upendra
Sharma in S.Tr. No.93 of 2003, R.T.I. Paper, Sadar Hospital,
Aurangabad, Complaint Case No.1159 of 2003, Order sheet of
1159 of 2003, FIR of Pauthu P.S. Case No.155 of 2003, Formal
FIR 155 of 2003, Order passed in Cr. Appeal No.18/14, Memo
of Appeal of Cr. Appeal No.18/14, Judgment passed in Cr.
Appeal No.18/14). The defence has also examined three
witnesses, i.e., DW-1 Shivnandan Singh, DW-2 Shivdeo Paswan
and DW-3 Madan Kumar Sharma. After closure of prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned
trial court has acquitted the accused persons.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Trial Court has taken into
consideration the minor discrepancy in the deposition of
witnesses, and that cannot be a ground for acquittal of the
accused as the appellant sustained grievous injury on her elbow
and thigh. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the Trial Court has also failed to consider that the
official witnesses have also supported the case of the
prosecution and the injury sustained by the injured, fully
corroborating with the opinion of the Doctor (PW-6).
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and have also gone through the records of the case.
8. The sole question that requires consideration by this
Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires
any interference by this Court.
9. As per the prosecution case, two persons are said to
be injured in course of occurrence, one Ramjari Devi (PW-1)
and other Upendra Sharma (PW-2). Upon meticulous evaluation
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the attention of this
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
Court is drawn towards the nature of injuries and applicability
of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the
medical report of injured witness Ramjari Devi (Ext.2, 2/1 &
2/2), it is evident that, except for injury No.2, all injuries are
simple in nature. Injury No.2, though opined to be grievous, is
on a non-vital part of the body, i.e., the middle finger of the left
hand. In absence of injury on a vital organ and in absence of
cogent evidence demonstrating intention or knowledge to cause
death, the statutory ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code stand unfulfilled.
10. Similarly, in respect of Upendra Sharma (PW-2),
the medical report (Ext. 2/3 & 3) discloses only simple injuries,
described as bruises or abrasions, none of which are on vital
parts or of a nature contemplated under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
11. Further, the attention of this Court is drawn
towards the credibility of witnesses but a significant portion of
the prosecution evidence suffers from lack of reliability, as
P.Ws.9 to 17 have been declared hostile. The hostile stance of
these witnesses materially weakens the prosecution case and
erodes the chain of evidence necessary for conviction.
12. Further, for evidence regarding alleged arson, as
per Paragraph No.6 of the deposition of the Investigating
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
Officer, it is admitted that the houses of the accused and the
informant are adjoining. Given the close proximity, the
allegation of setting fire to the adjoining house, appears
improbable in the absence of any corroborative evidence. This
casts serious doubt on the prosecution's version regarding the
alleged act of arson.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the informant and his family members are in habit
of instituting false criminal cases against the respondents. The
wife of the informant's brother has also got instituted a criminal
case with the identical allegations to set her house on fire by
same set of accused persons just 20 days prior to the institution
of the present case. The F.I.R. relating to aforesaid occurrence
has already been marked as defence Exhibit F in this case.
14. In view of such submissions advanced by learned
counsel for respondents, together with material contradiction in
the testimony of prosecution witnesses, does not inspire
confidence of this Court to draw an other view with regard to
the judgment of acquittal recorded by Trial Court.
15. We find that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a
criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Wherever, any doubt is cast upon the case of the prosecution,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
16. In a criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned Trial Court is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the
Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which
the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal
against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal
presumption about the innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is
imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura reported in
(2011) 9 SCC 479, paragraphs 13 & 14 of which read as under:
"13. It is clear that in an appeal against
acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
judgment and order, interference by this
Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if
the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it
being the final court of fact, is fully
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own
decision. In other words, the law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to
be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the
competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the findings of acquittal.
14. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to
come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived
at by the trial court with respect to both facts
and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is
the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for
doing so. If the order is "clearly
unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference.........."
17. In the case of Ghurey Lal versus State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in paragraph 75, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said view and observed as
under:
"75. The trial Court has the advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses who
have given evidence, therefore, the appellate
court should be slow to interfere with the
decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.459 of 2022 dt.11-08-2025
the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable."
18. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with
only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the order
is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must
not take a different view only because another view is possible.
It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
19. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Mayank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.08.2025
Transmission Date 18.08.2025
