Patna High Court
Surendra Chaudhari @ Surendra ... vs The State Of Bihar on 25 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1440 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2014 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Surendra Chaudhari @ Surendra Choudhary, Son of Late Ram Prasad
Chaudhary, R/o Village- Bhavdepur Got, PS- Riga, Distt- Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vinod Singh son of Late Kailash Singh
3. Rahul Kumar Singh, son of Vinod Singh
4. Anita Devi, wife of Vinod singh
5. Pinki Devi, Daughter of Suresh Paswan
6. Subodh Singh, Son of Late Kailash Singh
7. Usha Devi, Daughter of Harishankar Singh
All are residents of Village- Bhavdepur, PS- Riga, Distt- Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amar Nath Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Narayan Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 25-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
informant, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Sitamarhi in
Sessions Trial No. 490 of 2016 (Registration No. 522 of 2016)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
2/12
arising out of Riga P.S. Case No. 242 of 2014, whereby
Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were acquitted by the learned Trial
Court from the charge under Section 148, and Section 307 read
with Section 149 of the I.P.C., and were held guilty under
Section 147 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
The learned trial court further gave the accused the benefits of
Section 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and released
them after due admonition.
2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the
informant, Surendra Chaudhary, in brief, is that on 31.10.2014
at 8:30 PM, when the informant was returning home from his
shop, he was assaulted by the accused persons, namely, (1)
Subodh Singh, (2) Vinod Singh, (3) Rahul Kumar Singh, (4)
Dipak Kumar, (5) Anita Devi, wife on Vinod Singh (6) Wife of
Subodh Singh, name not known, (7) Richa Kumari and (8)
Usha Devi. The motive for such assault was a previous land
dispute between the accused and the victim. It was further
alleged that all the accused persons were armed with lathi,
danda and rod, and, surrounded the victim/informant with a
common object to kill him. The informant further alleged that he
was assaulted with lathi, danda and rod, and the accused
persons, in course of such assault, used filthy language, and said
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
3/12
"just finish him today", and "he has come from outside and
occupied the land". Thereafter, Subodh Singh stabbed the
informant with knife in his stomach, and the knife hit the back
side of waist of the informant, thereupon, blood started oozing
from the injured body part, and the informant fell on the ground
in his own pool of blood. It was further alleged that, while he
was lying in his own pool of blood, accused Vinod Singh took
away Rs. 15000/- from his pocket, which was the sale amount
from the informant's shop. On raising alarm, several persons
gathered who tried to intervene and settle the matter.
Subsequently, he was taken away to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi
by his wife and son, with the help of villagers and went under
treatment at the Hospital.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant,
Riga P.S. Case No. 242 of 2014 was instituted under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 342, 379, 447 and 504/34 of
I.P.C. and investigation was taken up by the police. The police
after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent
Nos. 2 to 7, under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section
149 of the IPC 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
4/12
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses,
namely, PW1 Avnish Kumar, PW2 Shatrughan Bhandani, PW3
Vinita Devi, PW4 Surendra, PW5 Dr. Alok Kumar, PW 6 Uma
Shankar Mmanjhi, A.S.I. and PW7 Dinesh Prasad. The
prosecution has also produced certain documents which were
marked as 'Exhibits', i.e., Signature of Vinita Devi on the
fardbeyan, Signature of Surendra Choudhary on the fardbeyan,
Signature of Satendra Singh on the fardbeyan, Forwarding on
fardbeyan by Satendra Singh, endorsement on fardbeyan by
Rakesh Gosai, Injury report, signature of Rakesh Gosai on
formal FIR and the charge sheet.
5. The defence has not produced any oral evidence.
However, the defence brought certain documents on record,
which were marked as 'Exhibits', i.e., Exhibit A the certified
copy of F.I.R. of Riga P.S Case No. 243/2014; Exhibit 2 is
certified copy of charge sheet of Riga P.S case No 243/2014;
Exhibit C is certified copy of order sheet dated 08-09-2021 to
10-12-2021
of Sessions Trial no. 49/2018 and Exhibit E is
certified copy of the evidence of Dr. Alok Kumar of S.T No.
49/2018. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements
of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
and after conclusion of trial, learned trial court acquitted the
accused persons.
6. The learned trial court, based on the facts and
evidence available on record, held that the accused persons were
not guilty under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.
and found them guilty under Section 323 read with 149 of the
I.P.C. The learned trial court held that the prosecution failed to
produce any evidence, which would show that the motive of the
accused persons, during the alleged occurrence, was to kill the
informant. The court further held that as per the medical report,
and the evidence of the doctor, the nature of injuries inflicted
upon the victim were simple injuries, which may have been
caused by a knife. The trial court further held that no
prosecution witnesses, except for the informant, stated about
assault by means of knife on the informant. Thus, as per the
evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court did not find any
corroboration of an assault by knife upon the victim, and made
out an offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., and not under
Section 307 of the I.P.C.
7. On the point of sentence, the learned trial court
took a lenient view citing that there was no previous criminal
convictions against the accused persons and there was a case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
and counter case, and thus, granted the benefits under Section 3
& 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that PW1, PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses of the alleged
occurrence and they have fully supported the prosecution case.
The accused persons/Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, were present at
the place of occurrence, which, as a fact, is fully corroborated
by the prosecution witnesses. The respondent No. 6 Subodh
Singh gave knife blow injury in the stomach of the informant,
which is fully corroborated by the injury report, and ought to
have been convicted under Section 307 IPC instead of Section
323 IPC and the rest of the respondents ought to have been
convicted under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC. The
learned trial court without application of mind and without
appreciation of evidence has given the benefit of doubt in casual
manners to Respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that there is no perversity in the
judgment of the learned trial court, and, the order of the learned
trial court requires no interference in the present case.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant,
and the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
through the records of the case.
11. The sole question that requires consideration by
this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
requires any interference by this Court.
12. As per the evidence of the doctor before the
learned trial court, it is clear that the nature of injuries inflicted
upon the victim are simple injuries. Paragraph 14 of the
impugned judgment deals with the injury of the victim, the
relevant part of which is reproduced as under:
"Injury no. 1 Simple in nature caused by sharp
object and injury number 2 simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt object.
Such injury may be caused by object like knife."
13. Further, as per the FIR, based upon the fardbeyan
of the informant, only a single knife blow is said to have been
given to the informant, but in the evidence before the learned
trial court, the informant has stated about a second knife injury.
The injury report also states that two sharp cut injuries were
given to the victim. This story of a second injury is an addition
to the facts stated in the FIR registered by the Police. This
addition of fact has not been sufficiently explained by the
prosecution, which negatively affects the case of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
prosecution. In light of these facts and the injury report, the
charge under Section 307 has not been proved by the
prosecution and only the offence under Section 323 read with
Section 149 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
14. P.W. 2, Shatrudhan Mandal, who is an
independent witness, in his evidence, has not specified about
any deadly weapon being in possession of the accused persons
during the alleged occurrence. The other witnesses, i.e., the wife
and the son of the informant, have only corroborated on the fact
that the accused persons surrounded the informant, with lathi,
danda and rod. The possession of a knife by any of the accused
is not made out by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Further, the evidence of all the witnesses show that the
Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, were present on the alleged place of
occurrence, however, the possession of a deadly weapon by the
accused persons has been disputed. Therefore, on the basis of
facts and evidence during the trial, we find that the learned trial
court rightly held the convicts guilty under Section 147 of the
IPC.
15. The findings recorded by the learned trial court do
not suffer from any illegality and perversity in the present case.
In a criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
the 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 criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned court below is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the
Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which
the judgment is based are 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 provides for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
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 Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, Hon'ble Supreme Court,
after referring to relevant precedents, has observed as follows:
"41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised within the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission
to consider material evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court."
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 and
find that the accused were rightly admonished under Section 3
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1440 of 2024 dt.25-08-2025
& 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and thereafter, released
from custody.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed
21. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant has argued very well and assisted the court with his
full sincerity.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.08.2025
Transmission Date 30.08.2025
