Patna High Court
Shiv Chander Kamat @ Shiv Chandra Kamat vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.538 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2022 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Shiv Chander Kamat @ Shiv Chandra Kamat, Son of Late Bam Bholi Kamat
Resident of Village - Ratanpura, Ward No. 9, P.S. - Kishanpur, District -
Supaul (Bihar)
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Subhash Yadav, Son of Shashi Shekhar @ Surat Lal Yadav, Resident of
Village - Ratanpura, P.S. - Kishanpur, District - Supaul (Bihar)
3. Ranjit Kumar Kamat @ Poin, Son of Vasudev Kamat, Resident of Village -
Ratanpura, P.S. - Kishanpur, District - Supaul (Bihar)
4. Aditya Anand @ Bitto Kumar, Son of Ashok Kumar Yadav, Resident of
Village - Ratanpura, P.S. - Kishanpur, District - Supaul (Bihar)
5. Nitish Kumar, Son of Rajesh Ranjan, Resident of Village - Ratanpura, P.S. -
Kishanpur, District - Supaul (Bihar).
6. Bhavesh Kumar, Son of Birendra Kumar, Resident of Village - Ratanpura,
P.S. - Kishanpur, District - Supaul (Bihar).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar No.-13, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar No 13
For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Addl.PP
For the Resp No. 2 : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rabish Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp No. 4 to 6 : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Tanushri, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 04-02-2025
Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant,
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
2/21
Vikas Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr.
Purushottam Kumar Tanushri, learned counsel for respondent nos.
4 to 6. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3. Mr.
Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
appeared on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'impugned judgment') whereby and whereunder the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Supaul (hereinafter
referred to as the 'learned trial court') has been pleased to acquit
respondent nos. 2 to 6 of the charges under Sections 147, 307/149,
302/149, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and
Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 2022
arising out of Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan
(Exhibit 'P/3') of Shiv Chander Kamat (PW-6) recorded by A.S.I.
Jitendra Kumar, Kishnapur Police Stationon 22.03.2022 at 1 O'
clock at Sadar Hospital, Supaul. In his fardbeyan, the informant
alleged that when he was going to a sleep in the night at 11:15 PM
and his sons had also gone to sleep in the rooms near the
courtyard, 5-6 boys came hurling abuses from the East side of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
3/21
Brahm Sthan. They were abusing the informant whereafter the
informant did not go for sleep and went near the road. He has
stated that there was lighting at his door in which he identified that
(1) Subhash Yadav, (2) Ranjit Kumar Kamat, (3) Chandan Yadav,
(4) Bitto Yadav, (5) Nitish Kumar and (6) Bhavesh Kumar were
there. The informant asked them to refrain from hurling abuses on
which Subhash Yadav and Ranjit Kamat scolded him and asked
about his son Chandan. The accused persons threatened him that
they would shot dead Chandan and he should be brought outside
the house. The informant alleged that he did not say anything but
on hearing the sound, his son Chandan Kumar and younger son
Abhinandan Kumar both came in front of the accused persons
whereafter Ranjit @ Poin identified Chandan Yadav and asked
Subhash Yadav to kill him. Thereafter Subhash Yadav shot at
Chandan on his chin whereafter Chandan fell down. A second
firing was also done aiming Abhinanadan Kumar but the cartridge
passed through his temporal region and he went unhurt. Thereafter
the informant alleged that on hearing the sound of firing, his elder
brother Ramchandar Kamat and younger brother Ramsunder
Kamat @ Chaudhary and his nephews Akash and Sunil came
running and they raised hulla whereafter all the six named accused
persons fled away towards the school in the western side by foot.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
4/21
Thereafter Chandan was brought to Sadar Hospital, Supaul where
Doctor declared him dead. The informant further alleged that the
accused persons had hatched a conspiracy at the door of Siyaram
Kamat of Bagha and apart from these accused persons, some other
accused, namely, Radheshyam Kamat, Virendra Kamat, Arvind
Kamat, Sanjay @ Vikas and Jivad Kamat all of village Ratanpura
were involved. They had also threatened earlier. The informant
alleged that there is a Mahakal Group in his village in which 25/30
boys are involved. The accused persons are members of the
Mahakal Group. They had been doing hulla in the school which is
nearby the house of the informant. They had stored liquor and
were making noises which was objected to by Chandan Kumar and
for this reason, he has been killed.
4. On the basis of this fardbeyan, Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 77
of 2022 dated 22.03.2022 was registered under Sections 307, 302,
120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation,
Police submitted a chargesheet against respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6
vide Chargesheet No. 225 of 2022 dated 16.06.2022 under the
aforementioned Sections keeping the investigation pending against
other accused persons. Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet
being Chargesheet No. 363 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022 was
submitted against respondent no. 2 and 5 under the aforementioned
sections keeping investigation pending against accused Chandan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
5/21
Kumar. Cognizance was taken of the offences and the records were
committed to the court of Sessions for trial whereafter charges
were explained to the accused who denied the charges and claimed
to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 147,
307/149, 302/149, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as twelve witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the
prosecution case. The defence also examined eight witnesses. The
list of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being shown
hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Ramsunder Kamat
PW-2 Abhinandan Kumar
PW-3 Sunil Kumar
PW-4 Akash Kumar
PW-5 Ram Chander Kamat
PW-6 Shiv Chander Kamat
PW-7 Parmeshwri Yadav
PW-8 Rajiv Kumar
PW-9 Sanjay Yadav
PW-10 Dr. Brijnandan Bharti
PW-11 Suman Kumar
PW-12 Kundan Kumar
List of Defence Witnesses
DW-1 Ravinder Yadav
DW-2 Shubhnarain Kamat
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
6/21
DW-3 Nunulal Yadav
DW-4 Mohan Kumar
DW-5 Rajender Sah
DW-6 Kameshwar Thakur
DW-7 Umesh Kamat
DW-8 Jailal Yadav
List of Prosecution Exhibits
Ext.P1/PW2 Signature of PW2 on the carbon copy
of the inquest report of the deceased
Chandan Kumar
Ext.P2/PW10 Postmortem Report
Ext.P3/PW11 Fardbayan
Ext.P4/PW11 Endorsement made on fardbayan
regarding registration of the case and
handing over the investigation
Ext.P5/PW11 Carbon copy of the inquest report of
the deceased Chandan Kumar
Ext.P6/PW11 Production cum seizure list of the
empty cartridge
Ext.P7/PW11 Production cum seizure list of the
pellet
List of Material Evidence
MO1/PW11 Pellet
MO2/PW11 Empty Cartridge
Findings of the learned Trial Court
6. After analyzing the evidences on record, the learned
trial court found that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and
PW-12 are interested witnesses being relatives and their evidences
do not inspire confidence. Moreover, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 did
not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the testimonies of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
7/21
prosecution witnesses create doubt regarding the implication of the
accused persons. Learned trial court found that the I.O. did not
send the alleged seized cartridge and pellet for scientific
examination and the I.O. did not find any source of light at the
place of occurrence. Learned trial court found that no murder
weapon or any incriminating article was recovered from the
possession of any of the accused persons to connect them with the
crime.
7. Learned trial court after taking into consideration all
the materials available on record held that the prosecution is
unable to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and, hence,
the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges giving
them benefit of doubt.
Submission on behalf of the Appellant
8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has assailed
the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned trial court
has indulged in surmises and conjectures and has arrived at a
wrong finding. The learned trial court has not taken into
consideration the evidences of the eyewitnesses merely on the
ground that they were close relatives of the deceased Chandan
Kamat.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
8/21
9. Learned Senior counsel submits that the learned trial
court has, while recording the judgment of acquittal, placed much
reliance upon the fact that there were contradictions in the
deposition of prosecution witnesses and that the source of light,
i.e. electric bulb, was not seized by the Investigating Officer.
Submission on behalf of the State and Respondents
10. On the other hand, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma,
learned Senior counsel representing respondent nos. 2 to 6,
submits that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
evidences available on the record. It is submitted that while
testimony of the related witnesses cannot be discarded outrightly,
in absence of any corroboration, the evidence of the related
witnesses may, in certain circumstances, not inspire confidence of
the Court. Referring to the findings of the learned trial court,
learned Senior counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses,
namely PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-12, are
closely related to the informant. The prosecution witnesses,
namely PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9, have not supported the
prosecution version. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
are not duly corroborated and a doubt has been created regarding
the false implication of accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
9/21
11. Learned Senior counsel submits that in his evidence,
the I.O. (PW-11) visited the place of occurrence firstly in the night
of 21.03.2022. At the place of occurrence, there was a huge crowd
who told him that the injured has been taken to the hospital,
whereafter the I.O. proceeded for Sadar Hospital, Supaul. In the
Sadar Hospital, Supaul, he recorded the fardbeyan of the father of
the deceased, inquest report was prepared by Sub-Inspector
Jitendra Kumar (not examined) of Kishanpur Police Station and
thereafter, formal FIR was lodged by PW-11. Once again, on
22.03.2022
, at 6:00 AM, he visited the place of occurrence,
conducted inspection of the place and prepared a map and
recorded statement of the witnesses. He has stated that the
informant presented one empty cartridge of which he prepared a
seizure list which has been marked Exhibit 'P/6' by PW-11. It is
submitted that the fact that the empty cartridge was not found by
PW-11 at the place of occurrence during his two visits and it was
only later on presented to him by the informant would create huge
doubt over the authenticity of the prosecution case. It is submitted
that in his cross-examination, the I.O. has stated that the empty
cartridge was not produced in course of inspection of the place of
occurrence. The seizure list was prepared by one Dharmendra
Singh, but he was not interrogated by PW-11 in course of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
investigation. In his examination-in-chief, I.O. has not stated that
there was any electric bulb at the place of occurrence. In his najri
map prepared at the place of occurrence, he had not mentioned
about any source of light or presence of electricity bulb.
12. Learned Senior counsel submits that on the face of
the material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the learned trial court has not committed any error in
appreciation of the evidences on the record.
Consideration
13. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the parties
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also
perused the trial court's records.
14. In the present case, the star witness of the
prosecution is the informant, namely, Shiv Chander Kamat @ Shiv
Chandra Kamat who is father of the deceased and has been
examined as PW-6. He claims himself an eye witness to the
occurrence but on a close perusal of his fardbeyan (Exhibit 'P3')
recorded by A.S.I. Jitendra Kumar (not examined) and his
deposition in course of trial, we find that his statements are at
material variance. In his fardbeyan, he has stated that he got
recorded his statement on 22.03.2022 in the mid night at 1
O'clock, however, from the formal FIR, we find that it has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
registered on 22.03.2022 at 04:20 AM. In his fardbeyan, the
informant has stated that when he was going to sleep in the night
at 11:15 PM and his sons had also gone to sleep in the rooms near
the courtyard, 5-6 boys came hurling abuses from the East side of
'Brahma Asthan'. They were abusing the informant whereafter the
informant did not go to sleep and went near the road. He has stated
that there was lighting at his door in which he identified that (1)
Subhash Yadav, (2) Ranjit Kumar Kamat, (3) Chandan Yadav, (4)
Bitto Yadav, (5) Nitish Kumar and (6) Bhavesh Kumar were there.
The informant asked them to refrain from hurling abuses on which
Subhash Yadav and Ranjit scolded him and asked about his son
Chandan. They threatened the informant that they would shot
dead Chandan and he should be brought outside the house. The
informant has alleged that he did not say anything but on hearing
the sound, his son Chandan Kumar and younger son Abhinandan
Kumar both came in front of the accused persons whereafter Ranjit
@ Poin identified Chandan Kumar and asked Subhash Yadav to
kill him. As per the fardbeyan, Subhash Yadav fired upon Chandan
at his chin whereafter Chandan fell down. A second firing was also
done aiming Abhinandan Kumar but the cartridge passed through
nearby his temporal region and he went unhurt. Thereafter the
informant has stated that on hearing the sound of firing, his elder
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
brother Ramchandra Kamat, younger brother Ramsundar Kamat
@ Chaudhary and his nephew Akash and Sunil came running and
they raised hulla whereafter all the six named accused persons fled
away towards the school in the western side by foot. Chandan was
brought to Sadar Hospital, Supaul where the doctor declared him
dead. The reason behind the occurrence has been also stated by the
informant. He has stated that the accused persons had hatched a
conspiracy in the house of Siyaram Kamat of Bagha and apart
from these accused persons, some other accused, namely,
Radheshyam Kamat, Virendra Kamat, Arvind Kamat, Sanjay @
Vikas and Jivad Kamat all of village Ratanpura were involved.
They had also threatened earlier. The accused persons are
members of the Mahakal group in which 25-30 boys are involved.
They had been doing hulla in the school which is nearby the house
of informant, they had stored liquors and were making noise which
was objected to by Chandan Kumar and for this reason, he was
killed.
15. When PW-6 came to depose in course of trial, he
attributed specific roles to all the accused persons in the killing of
his son. According to him, it was Ranjit Kamat who got identified
Chandan Kumar in order to kill him. Nitish Kamat caught hold of
the hair of Chandan from behind, Ranjit caught hold of the hand of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
Chandan and Subhash Yadav shot at Chandan from the close range
at his chin. Subhash Yadav fired another shot at Abhinandan but
that went away and Abhinandan was not hurt. In his cross-
examination, in paragraph '4' this witness has stated that his son
had no enmity prior to Holi with Subhash Yadav. The place of
occurrence is near the well at his door. It was night hours and at
his door, it was lighting. In paragraph '6' of his deposition, this
witness has stated that on the Holi festival, he had not seen any
dispute taking place between his son Chandan and the accused
persons. He has stated that the dispute was seen by his brother
Ramsundar and his brother had told him about the dispute two
days after the occurrence. He has stated that police had not
collected the bloodstained clothes of the injured and had not seized
the bulb which was lighting at the place of occurrence. In
paragraph '20', he has stated that apart from his family members,
no other villager had seen the occurrence. Regarding the
population around his house, he has stated that there are houses
from all the four sides of his house. It is for this reason, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 has submitted that if there
was any quarrel between Chandan Kumar on the one hand and
Subhash Yadav on the other hand on the occasion of Holi festival,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
there was no reason for Ranjit Kamat to get identified Chandan
Kumar to Subhash Yadav.
16. We have also noticed from the cross-examination of
PW-6 that, according to him, blood had fallen and spread on the
ground in an area of about one and half feet and when he lifted his
injured son, then his body and clothes were also stained with
blood. Contrary to this claim of PW-6, the I.O. (PW-11) has stated
in his evidence that no witness of this case had taken him to the
place of occurrence and showed him the bulb or any source of
light at the place of occurrence. Ramsundar Kamat, the brother of
PW-6 has stated before the I.O. in course of investigation that on
21.03.2022 he has sleeping at his Darwaza when he heard the
noises at the door of Shivchandra Kamat. He has stated that before
he could have understood something, he heard people shouting
that some one has been shot dead whereafter he went to the place
where Chandan had fallen down, he found him unconscious and
beside him, his nephew and his brother were also unconscious.
The neighbours had assembled there. The I.O. has further stated
that Abhinandan Kumar had not stated in course of investigation
that there was a bulb light at the door and in the said light he had
identified Subhash Yadav armed with pistol and at that time,
Ramsundar Kamat and Shivchandra Kamat were present there.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
17. This Court has further found that in paragraph '26',
the I.O. (PW-11) has stated that he had not seized any bloodstained
soil or cloth from the place of occurrence. In his statement in
paragraph '27', he has stated that he had not found any mark of
firing at the place of occurrence or in the nearby place.
18. Further, this Court has noticed from the deposition of
PW-6 in paragraph '35' that the deceased was working in a
motorcycle showroom, the motorcycles were being sold on
installments basis and the deceased was engaged in recovery of the
installments by visiting the house of the customers.
19. The informant (PW-6) has materially improved upon
his statements in course of trial is evident from his deposition.
20. Sanjay Yadav (PW-9) is said to be an independent
witness in this case who has stated that there was a quarrel
between Ranjit Kamat and Chandan in which Ranjeet Kamat had
taken out a pistol from his waist and shot at Chandan whereafter
Chandan fell down and thereafter Ranjit fled away. This witness
has, however, been interrogated by police after 2-3 months.
21. In his cross-examination, PW-11 has stated that it is
true that in the information, which he telephonically received
regarding the occurrence, it was not told that Subhash Yadav had
shot at someone. In the najri map, which he prepared during the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
inspection of the place of occurrence, he had not mentioned any
source of light or presence of electricity bulb. In course of
investigation, the witness Abhinandan Kamat (PW-2) had stated
that Ranjeet Kamat had a quarrel with his mother which was
objected to by deceased Chandan and had beaten Ranjeet due to
which Ranjeet Kamat was angry with deceased Chandan and he
had gone to the showroom of Anas Motorcycle in search of
Chandan. In paragraph '23' of his deposition, PW-11 has stated
that it is true that prior to giving the name of the accused persons
by the informant in his fardbeyan, in the information received by
him regarding the occurrence and in course of verification, no
other person had told him the name of the persons involved in the
crime. It further appears that the I.O. had found that the place of
occurrence is situated in an area which is densely populated but he
had not recorded statement of any independent witness. He had not
examined the person who had presented the empty cartridge and
he had not found any sign of firing nearby the place of occurrence.
None of the prosecution witnesses had shown him any source of
light.
22. From the evidence of Ramsunder Kamat (PW-1), it
would appear that he has stated that because of election disputes,
the accused persons had committed the occurrence. He has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
in paragraph '16' of his deposition that when hulla started, he was
sleeping in his house. He had gone to sleep at 10:30 PM. When he
reached at the door of his brother, he found that Abhinandan was
sitting holding Chandan and both of them were facing towards
South. Chandan was bleeding. Abhinandan was anxious and
Chandan was unconscious. In paragraph '12' of his deposition, he
has stated that he raised hulla after seeing Chandan and shouted,
goli maar diya - goli maar diya but no one came because of night
hours. From the deposition of PW-1, it is crystal clear that he is not
an eyewitness to the occurrence. His assertion that he got
awakened after hearing hulla is also doubtful because in his own
statement later on he has stated that when he went to the door of
his brother, he found that Abhinandan was holding Chandan. PW-
1 does not talk of presence of either the informant or any other
family member at that time. He has stated that he raised hulla
whereafter no one came because of the night hour.
23. The another witness, Abhinandan Kumar (PW-2) is
brother of the deceased, who has stated that when the named
accused persons surrounded his brother Chandan Kumar, then he
became afraid of them and he went near the boundary and stood
there. He has stated that at the said place, his father Shiv Chander
Kamat and his uncle Ramsunder Kamat were also standing. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
witness has given an impression that the occurrence has taken
place in his presence as well as in presence of Shiv Chander
Kamat and Ram Chander Kamat but from the evidence of
Ramsunder Kamat (PW-1), we have found that he was sleeping in
his house after taking meal at 10:30 PM and according to him, he
reached the place of occurrence only after hearing hulla and found
that Abhinandan (PW-2) was holding Chandan and Chandan was
bleeding. From the deposition of PW-2 also it appears that he is
not consistent in his statement, his attention was drawn towards his
previous statements made before the I.O. in which he had not
stated that Subhash Yadav had shot at Chandan from point blank
range on his neck which hit his chin and PW-2 had shouted. PW-2
denied to have made such a statement but the I.O. has stated in
paragraph '36' of his deposition that PW-2 had not stated in course
of investigation that at the place of occurrence there was a bulb
light at his door and he identified Subhash Yadav in the said bulb
light who was standing with a pistol. This Court finds that the I.O.
(PW-11) has contradicted PW-2 on material aspects of the
prosecution witnesses as regards the source of light and
identification of the accused.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
24. Sunil Kumar (PW-3) is a hearsay witness. He has
stated in paragraph '9' of his deposition that he was told about the
occurrence by his uncle and brother Abhinandan.
25. Akash Kumar (PW-4) is also not an eyewitness to
the occurrence. He has stated that he ran towards the door after
hearing the sound of firing. His attention was also drawn towards
his previous statement made before police in which he had not
stated that a bulb light was there at the door of his cousin brother
Chandan Kumar and in the said bulb light he had seen Subhash
Yadav armed with a pistol in his right hand and that five persons
were present near the well. In paragraph '12', he has stated that he
heard the sound of two rounds of firing. It is evident that this
witness is not an eyewitness. PW-2 has stated that even after
raising hulla by PW-1, no one had come because of the night
hours. Ramchander Kamat (PW-5) was also sleeping in his house
at 11:15 PM when he heard the sound of firing. He has stated in
paragraph '23' of his deposition that he had not seen Subhash
Yadav firing.
26. From the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it
is evident that they are not consistent, they have given different
genesis of occurrence, they are all related witnesses whose
testimonies alone are not inspiring confidence. Despite the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
occurrence being densely populated, there is no independent
witness in this case and according to PW-2, no one came even
after hulla because it was night hour.
27. We are considering an appeal against acquittal. The
principles governing an appeal against acquittal have been discussed
time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of H.D.
Sundara and Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9
SCC 581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated principles which
are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment 1
rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The
principles which govern the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised
as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens
the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is
required to consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which could have been
taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
1. State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa , 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.538 of 2024 dt.04-02-2025
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was also
possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order
of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the
only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis
of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the
accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
no other conclusion was possible."
28. In ultimate analysis of the entire materials on the
record, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
of the learned trial court.
29. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
SUSHMA2/Rishi
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.02.2025
Transmission Date 15.02.2025
