Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Harinandan Singh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.27 of 1998
======================================================
State of Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Harinandan Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi
(Narhat), Distt.- Nawada
2. Awadh Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi
(Narhat), Distt.- Nawada
3. Rajo Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
4. Kapil Singh S/o Late Mani Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
5. Gauri Singh S/o Late Jagdish Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi
(Narhat), Distt.- Nawada
6. Tunna Singh S/o Late Muni Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
7. Gore Lal Singh S/o Kapil Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
8. Lalla Singh S/o Harinandan Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
9. Karu Singh S/o Hari Nandan Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
10. Arbind Singh S/o Awadh Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
11. Putu Kumar S/o Awadh Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
12. Phutani Kumar S/o Awadh Singh R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat),
Distt.- Nawada
13. Babloo Kumar NA R/o vill - Barat, P.S.- Sitamarhi (Narhat), Distt.-
Nawadah
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
2/25
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 07-05-2025
The State has preferred the present appeal under
Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') against the
judgment dated 01.12.1997 passed by the court of learned 1 st
Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 364 of
1994/43 of 1994, whereby the learned Trial Court has
acquitted all the 13 accused persons, i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to
13, of all the charges levelled against them.
2. Prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan dated
17.05.1994
given by Santosh Kumar, son of deceased
Ramadhin Singh, is that in the intervening night of
16.05.1994/17.05.1994 at about 12:00 he was sleeping inside
the boring whereas his father Ramadhin Singh and uncle Bipin
Singh were sleeping outside the boring which is about 500
yards east of his village. He heard the alarm raised by his
father and uncle. When he came out from the boring, he saw
accused Harinandan Singh, Kapil Singh, Lala Singh, Bablu
Kumar having garasa, Awadh Singh, Tuna Singh having saif,
Rajo Singh, Karu Singh and Arvind Singh having khanti,
Gauri Singh, Putul Singh and Futani Singh having lathi and
Gorelal Singh having knife in their hands, came and began to
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
assault his father and uncle while both of them were sleeping.
Having seen this, to save himself, he fled away to nearby
boring, where Mithilesh Singh and Naresh Singh were
sleeping. He briefed them the incident and thereafter all of
them began to raise hulla on which several villagers came
there running and accused persons fled away. With several
villagers who had gathered, he again went to his boring and
saw head of his father injured, with profuse bleeding. His
uncle Bipin Singh was also injured having injury in his head.
With the help of the villagers he brought his father and uncle to
Sadar Hospital, Nawada for treatment, but his father
succumbed to the injury on way to hospital. His uncle was
admitted in the hospital in unconscious condition and was
getting treatment. It is also alleged that accused persons also
committed theft of a motor of the boring. The motive behind
the occurrence is said to be the old enmity on the issue of
irrigation in the last Aashin month, for which there was case
and counter case for the alleged murder of Umakant Singh, son
of accused Harinandan Singh, by the prosecution party.
3. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating
agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and
thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the
case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was
registered as Sessions Trial No. 364 of 1994/43 of 1994.
4. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined
eleven witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Shrikant Singh, P.W. 2
Santosh Kumar, P.W. 3 Mithilesh Singh, P.W. 4 Naresh Singh,
P.W. 5Vipin Kumar @ Vigan Singh, P.W. 6 Dr. Bipul Kumar,
P.W. 7 Arvind Kumar, P.W. 8 Girish Kumar Sinha, P.W. 9 Guro
Prasad Yadav, P.W. 10 Hansnath Chaubey and P.W. 11 Md.
Islam. Defence has also examined one witness, namely
Chitranjan Kumar.
5. Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned A.P.P.
for the appellant State and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondents.
6. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma would
mainly submit that there are three prosecution-witnesses who
have supported the case of the prosecution, including the
injured eye-witness. It is also submitted that the medical
evidence supports the version given by the eye-witnesses,
despite which the trial court has acquitted the respondent
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
accused. It is further submitted that the presence of the
informant, who is son of the deceased, was natural at the place
of occurrence. Thus, when the said witness has supported the
case of the prosecution, the trial court ought to have convicted
the respondent/accused. It is also submitted that the trial court
has wrongly discarded the deposition given by the injured eye-
witness. Learned A.P.P., therefore, urged that the impugned
judgment and order be quashed and set aside and thereby the
respondent/accused be convicted for committing the alleged
offence.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/accused has opposed the present appeal. It
is submitted that two of the prosecution-witnesses, who are
independent witnesses, have not supported the case of the
prosecution and they have turned hostile. It is also contended
that the other three so-called eye-witnesses are near relatives
of the deceased and, therefore, the deposition given by the said
witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. There are major
contradictions, inconsistencies and improvement in the
deposition of prosecution-witnesses and, therefore, the trial
court has rightly discarded the version given by the so-called
eye-witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that even
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
medical evidence does not support the case of the so-called
eye-witnesses. Learned counsel thereafter contended that even
the Investigating Officer had neither seized any blood stained
soil nor the cot, mattress or other blood stained clothes from
the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the incident
took place at 12:00 hours at night and it was a dark night. The
prosecution has also failed to prove that there was a
bulb/electricity available at the place of occurrence. Learned
counsel referred the deposition given by D.W. 1, Chitranjan, an
officer of the concerned Electricity Board in support of the
said submission. It is, therefore, contended that in absence of
light at the place of occurrence, it is difficult for the so-called
eye-witnesses to identify the assailants. Learned counsel,
therefore, urged that the trial court has not committed any error
while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in
favour of the respondent/accused as the prosecution has failed
to prove the case against the respondent/accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Learned counsel lastly contended that the
present is an acquittal appeal filed by the State and the scope
of interference in the acquittal appeal is very limited. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that the present appeal may not be
entertained.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsels for the parties. We have also perused
the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also perused the
documentary evidence exhibited.
9. At this stage, we would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution as
well as defence before the Trial Court.
10. P.W. 1 Shrikant Singh has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the incident took place at 12:00 in
the night of 16.07.1994. At that time, he was present at the
Cabin of Kedar Singh and was irrigating his Moong crop. He
saw that all the 13 accused persons named in the F.I.R. came
variously armed whom he identified in the light of electric
bulb. They were coming from the eastern side. Accused
Harinandan Singh, Kapil Singh and Lal Singh were having
Garasa in their hands, Awadh Singh and Tunna Singh were
armed with Saip, Rajo Singh, Arvind Singh and Karu Singh
were having Khanti in their hands, Futani Kumar and Bablu
Kumar were wielding lathi, Gore Lal was having a knife and
others were armed with lathi. Thereafter he saw Ramadhin
Singh and Vijan Singh soaked in blood. Both of them, who
were taken to hospital, were unconscious. Vijan Singh
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
recovered whereas Ramadhin Singh succumbed to the injuries.
He has identified accused Harinandan Singh, present in dock
and has claimed to identify others.
10.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
he is an accused in the case lodged by Harinandan Singh for
murder of his son. Besides him, Ramadhin Singh (deceased),
Ram Bilas Singh, Vigan @ Vipin Singh, Munak Singh,
Baleshwar Singh, Rajo Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Mantu Singh
and Dablu Singh are also accused in that case. In the present
case, Awadh, Lalan @ Lala and Gauri Singh are witnesses. He
has further stated that he had seen the accused persons near the
cabin of Kedar Singh in the light of electric bulb placed near
the cabin of Kedar. He has denied the suggestion that there was
no electricity in the whole area. He has stated that it was a dark
night. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons had
not assaulted Ramadhin Singh and Vigan Singh rather their
own men had assaulted them and accused persons were falsely
implicated in the present case due to the previous enmity. He
has further denied the suggestion that he had given false
evidence even regarding identification of the accused persons.
11. P.W. 2 Santosh Kumar is the informant. He
has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident took
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
place two years ago at 12:00 in the night. He was sleeping
inside the Motor Cabin which is situated 200-250 yards east
from the village. His father Ramadhin Singh and uncle Vipin
Singh were sleeping at that Cabin. An electric bulb was on
outside the cabin. On alarm raised by Vipin Singh, he got up.
He saw that all the 13 named accused came there variously
armed, as mentioned in the F.I.R. He came out of the cabin and
went to the cabin of Naresh Singh. Mithilesh Singh was
present there. Naresh Singh and Mistry Singh were also
present there. He informed them that the accused persons were
assaulting his father and uncle. All the three raised alarm upon
which a large number of villagers gathered at the place. He
again went to the cabin and saw his father and uncle in injured
condition. They were bleeding. He took both the injured to
Nawada Hospital during which his father breathed his last and
his uncle was unconscious.
11.1. In his cross-examination he has stated that
prior to the present case, accused Hari Nandan Singh had
lodged a case for murder of his son in which his father was an
accused. He has further stated that a bulb was hanging in the
holder outside the cabin on the western wall. Accused were
assaulting his father and uncle on the cot itself. When he came
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
out, no one assaulted him. He has further refused to examine
Naresh Singh and Mithilesh Singh as witnesses as they were in
connivance with the accused persons. Mithilesh Singh is also
known as Mistry Singh. His uncle Vipin had received 8
injuries, all caused by sharp weapons. When he returned to the
cabin, he saw accused persons fleeing away. The clothes which
Ramadhin Singh and Vipin Singh were wearing were blood
stained. The same were handed over to police. He has further
stated that there was no witness to the assailants besides him.
He has refused to examine the villagers as witnesses as they
are in connivance with the accused side. He has denied the
suggestion that he had not identified any of the assailants. He
has also denied that unknown persons had assaulted his father
and uncle and due to previous enmity they have been falsely
implicated in this case. He has also denied the suggestion of
giving false evidence.
12. P.W. 3 Mithilesh Singh and P.W. 4 Naresh
Singh have not supported the prosecution case and they have
been declared hostile.
13. P.W. 5 Vipin Kumar @ Vigan Singh is the
injured eye-witness. He has stated that the incident took place
two years ago at 12:00 in the night. At that time, he was
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
sleeping in his cabin. At that time Harinandan Singh having
garasa, Awadh Singh having Saip, Kapil Singh having
Garasa, Lala Singh having Garasa, Tuna Singh having Saif,
Gore Lal Singh having knife, Rajo Singh, Arvind and Karo
having Khanti in their hands, Bablu Kumar having Garasa,
Gauri Singh, Putal Singh and Futani having lathi came and
started assaulting him and Ramadhin Singh, as a result of
which he and his brother got injured. When he gained
consciousness, he found himself at P.M.C.H. and came to
know about the death of his brother Ramadhin Singh. He
claims to identify the accused persons in the light of bulb. He
has further stated that Sitamarhi Police had recorded his
statement after a month when he returned from Patna after
treatment.
13.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
Harinandan Singh had lodged Narhat (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case
No. 96/92 u/S-302 of I.P.C. for murder of his son Umakant
Singh against him and others in which they had appeared in
the Court of A.D.J. II. He has further stated that he is not
aware for how many days he remained admitted in Nawada
Hospital as he was unconscious. He gained his consciousness a
day after he was admitted in P.M.C.H. He remained under
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
treatment there for a month. Till he was under treatment at
P.M.C.H., no police personnel from Pirbahore P.S. had come to
record his statement. He was cornered in sleeping condition.
When he got up, he was indiscriminately assaulted with Saif,
Garasa and Khanti due to which he became unconscious. He
has denied the suggestion that neither he saw nor identified the
accused as he was assaulted in sleeping condition. He has also
denied no incident, as stated by him, had taken place and due
to the murder case lodged against him he had falsely
implicated the accused persons.
14. P.W. 6 Dr. Bipul Kumar has deposed that on
17.05.1994 he was posted as CAS in Sadar Hospital, Nawada.
On that day he conducted post mortem on the dead body of
Ramadhin Singh, aged about 40 years, and found the following
ante mortem injuries. Body was identified by Haribans Narain
Singh, Hawaldar.
(I) Incised wound 2"x1/2"x Clavial Cavity
deep over left frontal region of face just above lateral
aspect of left eye-brow.
(ii) Incised wound 1.5"x1/2"x cavity deep
over temporal parietal region of scalp.
(iii) Incised wound 2.5"x1/2"x cavity deep
over right frontal region of scalp. Brain metal leaking
from the bone.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
(iv) Incised wound 1"x1/2"xscalp deep
over left parietal region of scalp.
(v) Abrasion 1/4"x1/4" over left knee 2"
below knee joint.
(vi) Abrasion 1/2"x1/4" over lateral aspect
of right leg.
Injuries no. (I) to (iv) were caused by sharp
cutting weapons which may be saif, garasa, khanti,
whereas injuries no. (v) and (vi) were caused by hard
blunt substance, which may be lathi.
On dissection:- Fracture of frontal and both
parietal bones. Brain matter and memberance were
contused at multiple places. Cranial cavity filled with
blood clot. All other visceras found intact and pale.
Stomach contains Semi digested food material. Bladder
partially filled. Heart left chamber empty and right
chamber full. Cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage produced by above injuries particularly
head injury. Time elapsed since death within two to
twenty four hours. He has identified the P.M. Report to
be in his pen and signature (Ext.-5). He has further
stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death.
15. P.W. 7 Dr. Arvind Kumar has deposed that on
17.05.1994 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Nawada as
Orthopaedic Surgeon. On that day at 1.30 PM he examined
injured Bipin Kr. S/o Baleshwar Singh of Vill.- Barat, P.S.
Sitamadhi, Nawada and found the following injuries over his
body:-
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
(i) Lacerated wound 2.5"x2"x1" on the
right side of tempo parietal region.
(ii) Lacerated wound 3/4"x1/8"x1/4" over
right side of forehead.
(iii) Lacerated wound 3/4"x1/8"x1/4"
middle of the forehead.
(iv) Lacerated wound 1"x1/2"x1/4" over
top of Scalp.
(v) Lacerated wound 1"x1/8"x1/4" above
the eyebrow of the right side.
(vi) Swelling of both eyes.
(vii) Abrasion on dorsan of head of right
side 1"x1/8".
(viii) Abrasion of little and middle finger of
left hand 1/2"x (illegible)
(ix) Abrasion of both knee joint 1/2"x1/4"
Age of injury was within 6 hrs. Nature: All
were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt
substance such as lathi and blunt portion of Khanti.
He has identified the injury report (Ext-6)
to be in his pen and signature.
16. P.W. 8 Girish Kumar Sinha has deposed that
in 1994 he was posted as Incharge of Sitamarhi Police Station.
He was given the charge of investigation of Narhat P.S. Case
No. 40/94 from Sri G.P. Yadav and on the instruction of his
senior official he submitted charge-sheet in the case. He has
further stated that he had neither recorded statement of
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
anybody nor he had visited the place of occurrence.
17. P.W. 9 Guru Prasad Yadav has deposed that on
17.05.1994 he was posted as S.H.O. of Sitamarhi Police
Station. At 11:31 p.m. he was informed by Choukidar Raj
Kumar Rajbanshi that accused Harinandan Singh and others
have assaulted and injured Ramadhin Singh and Vipin Singh
who were sleeping in their Cabin. Ramadhin Singh succumbed
to the injuries while being taken for treatment. He registered
Sanha No. 252 dated 15.05.1994 and proceeded for the place
of occurrence with police force. He visited the place of
occurrence and seized the blood stained soil as exhibit. He
recorded the re-statement of the informant and in course of
recording statements of the witnesses, he recorded the
statement of witness Mithilesh Singh. Lastly he recorded the
statement of injured Vipin Singh @ Vigan Singh as he was
admitted in P.M.C.H.
17.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
he had not seized any cot, mattress or any other blood stained
cloth. He had not seen any electric meter in the cabin of Rajo
Singh and nobody had shown him any electric bulb or wire.
During the course of investigation, he had not found any
electric apparatus around the place of occurrence. He has not
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
recorded whether power was on at the time of occurrence or
not. He has further stated that witness Vipin Kumar @ Vigan
Singh had not stated in his statement that when he was inside
the cabin, bulb was on. He had just said that accused persons
cornered in sleeping condition and assaulted. Before this
incident, Narhat (Sitamarhi) P.S. Case No. 96 of 1992 dated
04.11.1992 was lodged by accused Harinandan Singh against
Ramadhin Singh, Vigan Singh etc. regarding the death of his
son Umakant. He was the investigating officer in that case also
and had filed charge-sheet. He has denied the suggestion that
he had not properly conducted investigation in this case.
18. P.W. 10 Hansnath Chaubey is an attesting
witness to Sanha Register of 1994, bearing Sanha No. 252
dated 18.05.1994 (Exts-X, 1/x). He has not stated anything
about the occurrence.
19. P.W. 11 Md. Islam is an attesting witness. He
has identified Sanha No. 252 dated 17.05.1994 (Ext-10) to be
in the handwriting of literate constable Birendra Kumar Singh.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not aware of
the contents of the Sanha.
20. DW-1 Chitranjan Kumar has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he is posted Electric Sub Power
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
Station, Hasua since 1989. He has further stated that from
22.50 p.m. on 16.05.1994 to 01:05 a.m. on 17.05.1994 power
was not supplied from Nawada to Hasua Sub Station. During
that period power was also not supplid to Narhat feeder.
21. We have considered the arguments canvassed
by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, re-
appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution as well
as defence and perused the trial court records and exhibits.
22. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that two
independent witnesses who allegedly saw the occurrence in
question, i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, have not supported the case of
the prosecution and they have turned hostile. Thus, the case of
the prosecution rests on three witnesses who are near relatives
of the deceased. It transpires from the record that though P.W.
1 is projected as an independent witness by the prosecution,
from the deposition given by the said witness, it transpires that
there are major contradictions, inconsistencies and
discrepancies in the prosecution story. The conduct of the said
witness is also unnatural. As per the version given by P.W. 1, at
about 12:00 hours at night, he was on the cabin/boring of
Kedar Singh and was irrigating his Moong field. When he saw
all together 13 accused, whose names are specifically narrated
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
by him, armed with Garasa, Saif, Khanti, Lathi and Knife near
the said cabin. He identified them in the electric light.
Thereafter, he went to Tiniya Pokhar and saw Ramadhin Singh
and Vipin Singh in a pool of blood and unconscious. Thus, it
appears from the said deposition that the said witness had not
seen the actual occurrence and the role played by the accused
in the incident in question. From his deposition, it further
appears that the said witness has narrated in detail with regard
to the weapons which the accused were carrying at the time of
occurrence. Further, from his cross-examination, it is revealed
that it was a dark night. We are, therefore, of the view that it is
difficult for the said witness to see more than 13 accused, who
were carrying different weapons in such dark night. At this
stage, it is also relevant to note that D.W. 1, an officer from
Power Sub-Station, Hansua, has specifically deposed before
the Court that at the time of occurrence, power was not
supplied to Nawada from Hansua Power Sub-Station.
23. P.W. 2, the informant, is the son of the
deceased. From the F.I.R. filed by him itself, it is revealed that
the said witness has given the names of 13 accused and the
weapons which they were carrying. P.W. 2 was minor at the
relevant time and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that during
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
dark night he had identified all the 13 accused and the different
weapons which they were carrying in their hands. From the
deposition of other witnesses also, it can be said that there are
major contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to the
version given by the said witness.
23.1. At this stage, it is relevant to note that in
para-20 of his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted
that he is the sole witness who had seen the occurrence in
question. Thus, it appears that there is no other person who had
seen the occurrence in question. However, as the informant is
the son of the deceased and an interested and related witness,
his deposition is required to be scrutinized carefully.
24. At this stage, we would also like to refer the
deposition given by P.W. 6, the doctor who had conducted post
mortem of the dead body of the deceased. From the deposition
of the said doctor, it appears that the medical evidence does not
support the version given by P.W. 2. From the deposition of the
said doctor, it transpires that the time of alleged occurrence is
not consistent with the report given by the doctor.
25. At this stage, the deposition given by P.W. 5,
who is projected as an injured eye-witness, is also required to
be examined closely. The prosecution has projected P.W. 5 as
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
an injured eye-witness who had also sustained injuries in the
incident in question. However, the said witness has specifically
stated that initially he was taken to Nawada Hospital. At that
time, he was unconscious. Thereafter, he was shifted to
P.M.C.H., Patna. There he regained consciousness. He
remained in the said hospital for about one month. It is the
specific case of the prosecution that during the said period, the
I.O. did not record his statement. It is his further case that all
the accused gave indiscriminate blows of Saif, Garasa and
Khanti. However, at this stage, if the deposition given by P.W.
7, the doctor who had given treatment to the injured (P.W. 5) is
carefully examined, it transpires that the said witness was
posted at Sadar Hospital, Nawada and the said witness has
specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that nature of
injuries was simple and caused by hard and blunt substance,
such as, lathi and blunt portion of Khanti. Thus, from the
aforesaid deposition given by the doctor, it can be said that
nature of injuries sustained by P.W. 5 was simple. That means,
he was not unconscious, as deposed by him. It is pertinent to
note at this stage that though the said witness remained in
P.M.C.H., Patna for about one month, the doctor who had
given treatment in the said hospital has not been examined by
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
the prosecution. It is further surprising that the Investigating
Officer did not record the statement of the said witness for one
month.
26. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer who had
carried out the investigation. In his examination-in-chief the
said witness has, though stated that he seized the blood stained
soil, but the seizure-list of the same was not prepared nor the
same was sent for necessary analysis to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. Further, in para-13 of his cross-examination he has
deposed that he did not seize the cot, mattress or other blood
stained clothes etc. Further, he has admitted that he did not
enquire whether there was any bulb or facility of electricity
available at the place of occurrence or not. It is pertinent to
note that, in the present case, there is no recovery or discovery
of any weapon from any of the accused.
27. Looking to the aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case against the respondent/accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
28. At this stage, we would like to refer the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
(2007) 4 SCC 415 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the principle regarding the powers of the Appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal. In Para-42 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding powers of the
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 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 emphasise 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 is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
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."
29. In the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs.
State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, in Para-22, as under:-
"22. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2
SCC (Cri) 31] has considered various earlier judgments
on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It held
that there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is 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 court. It has been
further held that 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."
30. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that Appellant
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is 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. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should
not disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court.
31. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the evidence led by the
prosecution is carefully examined, we are of the view that
interference in the impugned judgment and order rendered by
the trial court is not required in the present acquittal appeal
filed by the appellant State.
32. We have also gone through the reasoning
recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned
judgment and order and we are of the view that no error is
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.27 of 1998 dt.07-05-2025
committed by the trial court and, therefore also, no
interference is required in the present appeal.
33. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date 15.05.2025
