Patna High Court
Dulari Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.358 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2018 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Dulari Devi, Wife of Mokil Yadav, Resident of Kashimpur, P.S.-Goradih Dis-
trict -Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shravan Yadav, Son of Haldhar Yadav, Resident of Village- Tarcha, P.S.
-Goradih, District -Bhagalpur.
3. Haldhar Yadav, Son of Late Bhango Yadav, Resident of Village- Tarcha, PS
-Goradih District -Bhagalpur.
4. Kanki Devi, Wife of Haldhar Yadav, Resident of Village- Tarcha, P.S.
-Goradih District -Bhagalpur.
5. Lalan Yadav, Son of Haldhar Yadav, Resident of Kashimpur Kahalgoan, P.S.
-Goradih District -Bhagalpur.
6. Sunil Yadav, Son of Haldhar Yadav, Resident of Village- Tarcha, P.S.
-Goradih District -Bhagalpur.
7. Sushil Yadav, Son of Shiv Yadav, Resident of Village- Kashimpur Kahal-
gaon, P.S.- Goradih, Dist- Bhagalpur.
8. Reeta Devi @ Reena Devi, Son of Shushil Yadav, Resident of Village-
Kashimpur Kahalgaon, P.S.- Goradih, Dist- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Resp Nos. 2 to 8: Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 09-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
2/29
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal passed on 01.02.2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the impugned judgment) by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 119
of 2019 + Session Trial No. 339 of 2019 + Session Trial No. 223
of 2021 (Trial No. 263 of 2022) arising out of Jagdishpur
(Goradih) P.S. Case No. 382 of 2018 dated 22.07.2018 whereby
and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit
Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 of the charges under Sections 304(B)/34,
302/34, 201/34 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the mother of the deceased (PW-2) addressed to the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur in which she has
stated that she had got her daughter married to Shravan Yadav,
resident of Bhagalpur in the year 2012 and out of the wedlock, her
daughter has got two children. After marriage, her daughter's
husband Shravan Yadav, father-in-law Haldhar Yadav, mother-in-
law Kanki Devi, devar Lalan Yadav and Sunil Yadav, Sushil Yadav
and Reeta Devi were continuously torturing and beating her
daughter for Rupees One Lakh and cow due to which her daughter
used to come to her naihar many times to save her life. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
3/29
alleged that six months ago, upon compromise with the husband of
her daughter and her in-laws showing good faith, the informant
allowed her daughter to go to her sasural and also gave two cows
worth Rs.60,000/-, but again the in-laws started assaulting her
daughter and harassed her. On 22.07.2018, the informant came to
know that her daughter has been murdered by her husband and in-
laws, they have concealed the dead body and ran away after
locking their house. The informant alleged that she gave written
complaint in Goradih Police Station but no action was being taken.
This written application was sent to the Officer Incharge of
Goradih Police Station to ensure proper action as per law. On
being receipt of this written application, Jagdishpur (Goradih) P.S.
Case No. 382 of 2018 dated 02.08.2018 was registered for the
offences under Sections 304B/201/34 IPC.
4. After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet
bearing No. 172 of 2018 dated 28.11.2018 against Sushil Yadav
(respondent no. 7) keeping investigation pending against other
accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet, learned
Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections
304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated 13.12.2018. After
commitment, Session Trial No. 119 of 2019 was registered on
26.03.2019
in which charges were explained to accused Sushil
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Yadav to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly
charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC
was framed vide order dated 30.04.2019.
5. Thereafter, police submitted supplementary
chargesheet bearing No. 51 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 against
Reeta Devi (Respondent no. 8) keeping investigation pending
against other accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet,
learned Magistrate finding prima-facie material against her for the
offences under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order
dated 21.05.2019 kept the case for supply of police paper. After
commitment, Session Trial No. 339 of 2019 was registered on
19.06.2019 in which charges were explained to accused Reeta
Devi to which she denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly,
charges under Sections 304B/120B/201/34 IPC was framed vide
order dated 20.02.2020.
6. Thereafter, police submitted another supplementary
chargesheet bearing No. 186 of 2019 dated 05.12.2019 against
Shravan Yadav (Respondent No. 2), Lalan Yadav (Respondent No.
5), Sunil Yadav (Respondent No. 6), Haldhar Yadav (Respondent
No. 3), Kanki Devi (Respondent No. 4). After receiving this
chargesheet, learned Magistrate finding prima-facie material
against these accused persons for the offences under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated 23.12.2019 kept the
case for supply of police paper. After commitment, Session Trial
No. 223 of 2021 was registered on 15.03.2021 in which charges
were explained to accused persons to which they denied and
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges have been framed against
Shravan Yadav, Haldhar Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Kanki Devi and
Sunil Yadav vide order dated 01.12.2021 under Sections
304(B)/34, 201 and 120(B) IPC. Prio to 21.09.2022, PW-1 and
PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined
and discharged. In Session Trial No. 1191 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-
1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of
amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions
Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been
examined on 07.05.2022, she has been described as PW-3 but
there is no PW-1 and PW-2.
7. Vide order dated 21.09.2022, Sessions Trial No. 339
of 2019 and Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were amalgamated
with Session Trial No. 119 of 2019. Prior to 21.09.2022, PW-1 and
PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined
and discharged. In Sessions Trail No. 119 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-
1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of
amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been
examined on 07.05.2022, she has been described as PW-3 but
there is no PW-1 and PW-2.
8. In course of trial, prosecution examined several
witnesses and got exhibited some documentary evidences. List of
Prosecution witnesses and the documents adduced on behalf of
prosecution are mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PWs Name of witness
PW 2 Dulari Devi ST No. 119 of 2019 +ST
No. 339 of 2019 + ST No.
223 of 2021
PW 3 Mokil Yadav ST No. 119 of 2019 +ST
No. 339 of 2019 + ST No.
223 of 2021
PW 4 Dr. Bibhuti Kumar ST No. 119 of 2019 +ST
No. 339 of 2019 + ST No.
223 of 2021
Two witnesses were previously examined in ST No. 223 of 2021
PW 1 Umesh Yadav
PW 2 Gopal Pandit
List of Exhibits
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit
Ext-P1/PW-2 Signature of the Informant on written
informant
Ext-P1/PW-4 PM Report
List of Defence Witnesses
DW-1 Pankaj Kumar
DW-2 Mohril Das
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Findings of Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court, after analysing the evidences
available on the record found that in the written application, the
informant alleged that her daughter was harassed by her in-laws
for dowry due to which her daughter many times came to naiher
but there is no evidence of any witness to corroborate this
allegation. Further, learned trial court found that there is no
application regarding beating for dowry on record reported to any
authority. Learned trial court further found from the evidence of
the defence witnesses that accused Reeta Devi was married and
was living in her sasural with her husband and all the brothers of
the husband of the deceased were also living separately. Learned
trial court observed that it seems that the informant has tried to
drag the entire family of in-laws of her daughter in the dowry case
due to said unfortunate incident.
10. Learned trial court found that the body of the
deceased was recovered from river after seven days. Learned trial
court found that PW-2 deposed that there was black mark on neck
of her daughter but this fact has not been supported by her
husband (PW-3). Learned trial court further found that Post
mortem report shows that there was no external injury and it
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
indicates the presence of Celphos in the visceral fluid of the
deceased but it does not show that the said Celphos was forcefully
administered to the deceased.
11. Learned trial court observed that even if for the
argument sake, it is presumed that Celphos was forcefully
administered to the deceased and the body was thrown in the river
then also there is not a single eye witness to depose from the
prosecution side that they have seen the accused persons throwing
the dead body in the river.
12. Learned trial court after considering all the materials
found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all
reasonable doubts that the deceased was harassed soon before her
death for demand of dowry and due to non-fullfilment of said
demand, the deceased was killed by the accused. Accordingly,
learned trial court found that the prosecution is unable to prove the
charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC,
hence, acquitted the accused persons-respondent nos. 2 to 8.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment. It is submitted that learned trial court has
acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 8 without appreciating the
evidences available on the record. Learned trial court has failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
appreciate the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who have supported
the prosecution case.
14. Learned trial court has erroneously closed the
evidence without examining the four charge-sheet witnesses
including the Investigating Officer of this case and the Officer-in-
Charge of Sanhaula Police Station.
15. Learned counsel submits that there were ample
materials before the learned trial court to held the respondent nos.
2 to 8 guilty but has erroneously acquitted them from the charges
levelled against them without examining all the chargesheet
witnesses.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8
16. Learned counsel representing respondent nos. 2 to 8
defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the learned
trial court has rightly come to the conclusion in acquitting the
accused persons after analysing the evidences brought by the
prosecution and no fault may be found with the same.
17. Learned counsel submits that it is the case of the
prosecution that the informant's daughter was continuously
harassed for dowry and beaten due to which she many times came
to naiher but prosecution has not brought any evidence to
substantiate this allegation. Further, the prosecution has failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
bring any documentary evidence to show that the informant or
deceased had ever submitted any application regarding beating for
dowry to any authority.
18. Learned counsel further submits that the defence
witnesses deposed that accused Reeta Devi (respondent no. 8) was
married and was living in her sasural with her husband
(respondent no. 7) and all the brothers of the husband of the
deceased were also living separately which shows that the
informant has tried to drag the entire family of in-laws of her
daughter in the dowry case due to said unfortunate incident.
Submissions of the State
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has defended the
impugned judgment but fairly submitted that learned trial court has
closed the evidence without examining the four chargesheet wit-
nesses.
Appreciation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution
20. In this case, though, while submitting Charge-sheet
No. 172 of 2018, the I.O. has shown five witnesses as charge-
sheet witnesses but out of five, only three witnesses have been
examined on behalf of the prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
21. In Charge-sheet No. 186 of 2019, apart from the five
charge-sheet witnesses of Charge-sheet Witness No. 172 of 2018,
two other witnesses namely Umesh Yadav and Gopal Pandit have
been made charge-sheet witnesses.
22. In the third charge-sheet bearing No. 51 of 2019
dated 15.05.2019, in the column of the charge-sheet witnesses it is
recorded as "poorv aarop patra ke anusar". It is thus evident that
altogether seven witnesses were cited on behalf of the prosecution
to support its case.
23. Ena Devi (PW-1) has been declared hostile. She has
been cross-examined by the prosecution and her attention was
drawn towards her earlier statement made before police in which
she had stated that Chandani Devi (the deceased) had two children
and her sasural people were regularly beating her. She had also
stated that Chandani Devi was murdered by Shrawan Yadav with
the help of his mother-father and brother. This witness was
suggested in course of her cross-examination that she had come in
collusion with the accused persons and was making false
deposition.
24. Dulari Devi, wife of Mokil Yadav has deposed as
PW-2. She is the informant of this case. She has stated that her
daughter was married in the year 2012. The occurrence had taken
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
place in the year 2018. She has further stated in her examination-
in-chief that Haldar Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Shrawan
Yadav, Kanki Devi, Rita Devi, Sushil Yadav all were together
assaulting her daughter Chandani Devi and her daughter has been
murdered as she could not fulfill the demand of Rs. 1.50 lakhs as
dowry. She was not allowed to see the dead body of her daughter
and they had made the dead body to disappear. They had also
concealed her nati and natni. This witness has stated that the
accused persons were threatening her. She had stated everything to
police and she is looking for justice. She has identified her
signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked 'P1/PW-2'.
This witness has identified all the accused persons in the dock.
In her cross-examination this witness has stated that Rita Devi
is sister of Shrawan. Sushil is jija (brother-in-law) of Shrawan.
Sushil and Rita were married prior to the marriage of Chandani
Devi and Rita Devi was living with her husband Sushil. She has
stated that prior to the marriage of Chandani Devi, Rita Devi and
her husband Sushil were living separately. She has stated that she
had given her application to 2-4 persons of the village but she did
not remember their name. The dead body of her daughter was
found at Sanhaula Police Station. She heard the rumour of the
death of her daughter in her village whereafter she had gone to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
house of the accused persons and later on she went to the police
station where she saw the dead body of her daughter. She
identified the dead body on looking at the same and the
photographs. She came to know that the dead body of her
daughter was found in a river. She could not see any mark of
injury because the dead body was found after seven days. She has
stated that there was a black mark on the neck of the dead body.
She denied the suggestion of the defence that there was no
demand of dowry and she had falsely implicated the accused
persons.
25. Mokil Yadav (PW-3) is the father of the deceased.
He has stated that the occurrence is of the year 2018. This witness
has further stated that Shrawan Yadav was indulging in beating his
daughter and was demanding Rs. 1 Lakh as dowry. He has further
stated that because he could not pay the dowry money so Shrawan
had killed his daughter. He had given two cows to Shrawan. His
son-in-law Shrawan, Sunil, Suman, Haldar and Sushil all had
together taken away the cows. This witness has stated that the
dead body was found in the Sanhaula Police Station, he had
lodged the case and had also made his statement before the police.
In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he had not
seen the occurrence by his own naked eyes and he had lodged the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
case in anger. He cannot say as to from whom he had received the
information. He had not given any written information with regard
to the demand of dowry to any Mukhiya or Sarpanch. He denied
the suggestion of defence that no dowry was demanded and he
had falsely implicated the accused persons.
26. Dr. Bibhuti Kumar (PW-4) is the doctor who had
conducted the autopsy on the dead body on 27.07.2018 at 1:00
PM. He has stated that the dead body was brought to the
department by Chowkidar Nishikant Rajak and Akshay Paswan
from Sanhaula Police Station. The dead body was identified by the
same Chowkidar and it was handed over to them after postmortem
examination. In his deposition, PW-4 has stated that on
examination rigor mortis had passed of. Scalp hairs had fallen off.
Muscles and tissue of scalp and face had been eaten up by aquatic
animals. Maggots were swarming all over the dead body. No
external injury was found over the body and body surface. The
body was in early decomposition. On dissection stomach contain
about 50 ml of gray colour fluid with deeply congested gastric
mucosa and strong pungent smell. Solid organs like liver, spleen,
kidney and lungs were congested. Bladder was empty. Uterus was
small in size, right side of heart contain blood whole left side was
empty. Brain and its meninges were in process of liquefaction.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
The viceras were preserved and forwarded to the FSL for chemical
analysis. Regarding the time since death, PW-4 has deposed that
the death was within two days to five days of postmortem
examination in the department. In his cross-examination this
witness has stated that the dead body was decomposed. Over the
dead body no ante-mortem injury were present. The gastric
mucosa was congested with strong pungent smell and he had
preserved the viscera for suspected poisoning. The postmortem
report has been marked Exhibit 'P1/PW-4'.
27. This Court has noticed that the FSL report has been
brought on record, however, the FSL report has not been proved
and this has not been marked exhibit.
Appreciation of evidence on behalf of the defence
28. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses have
deposed. Pankaj Kumar (DW-1) is a co-villager of Haldar Yadav.
He has stated that Haldar Yadav has three sons namely Lalan
Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Shrawan Yadav and one daughter namely
Rita Devi. Rita Devi was married in the year 2016-17 in village
Kasimpur and he was living with her husband in her sasural. He
has stated that Shrawan Yadav, Haldar Yadav, Sunil Yadav are
living separately. In his cross-examination he has stated that he
has no relationship with the accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
29. Mohril Das (DW-2) has deposed on the same line.
He has also stated that Rita Devi was married about fifteen years
ago and all the brothers are living separately with their family.
Consideration
30. We have perused the ordersheets of the trial court to
find out as to why the other four witnesses including the
Investigating Officer of this case and the Officer-in-Charge of
Sanhaula Police Station who were charge-sheet witnesses have not
been examined. This Court finds that the records of the three trials
were amalgamated and all the three trials were transferred to the
court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V. The
records were running for production of prosecution witnesses. On
16.12.2022, Bibhuti Kumar (PW-4) was examined, cross-
examined and discharged by the trial court. On 03.01.2023,
20.01.2023, 01.02.2023. 22.02.2023, 04.03.2023, 22.03.2023,
03.04.2023, 26.04.2023, 10.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 07.07.2023,
05.08.2023, 08.09.2023, 09.10.2023, 16.10.2023 and 08.11.2023
no prosecution witness was produced. On 08.11.2023, the learned
trial court passed an order for issuance of a show-cause to the
Investigating Officer of the case. The case was kept on
05.12.2023, however, on 05.12.2023 again no prosecution witness
appeared. This time, the trial court recorded that it is the last
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
chance for the prosecution to produce the witness. The matter was
kept on 20.12.2023 but again on 20.12.2023 no prosecution
witness was present. On that date, the learned trial court closed the
prosecution evidence and the records were kept for statement
under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC').
31. On 02.02.2024, the statement of the accused persons
were recorded. The defence examined two witnesses on
08.01.2024 and 09.01.2024. On 18.01.2024 and 25.01.2024
hearings took place and thereafter judgment was delivered on
01.02.2024.
32. It is evident from the orders passed by the learned
trial court that save and except that on one date a show-cause was
called from the I.O., no other effective order could be passed to
secure the appearance of the prosecution witnesses. On record, we
do not find any application on behalf of the Public Prosecutor
seeking appropriate steps for procuring presence of the
prosecution witnesses. On record there is a letter of the Presiding
Officer of the trial court to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bhagalpur issued on 17th September, 2023 by which the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur was informed that the
Investigating Officer namely Neeraj Kumar and Ram Pravesh
Yadav are not putting appearance, bailable warrant and non-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
bailable warrants have been issued against them but they have not
appeared. The Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to
issue order to the two I.Os. to mark their presence in court on
09.10.2023 for recording of their evidences. This letter seems to
have been issued vide DB 394 dated 11.09.2023.
33. It is evident from the records that the Senior
Superintendent of Police did not take care of the letter issued by
the Presiding Officer of the trial court. The two I.Os. of the case
did not depose.
34. The laches on the part of the prosecution is evident
from the records. The trial court though issued a show-cause to the
I.O. but did not bother to see that whether show-cause has been
received or not and if not received then what action is required to
be taken at its end. In the opinion of this Court, it was incumbent
upon the learned trial court to exhaust all the procedures which are
prescribed by law. The CrPC prescribes the steps required to be
taken by the trial court by way of issuance of summons, bailable
warrant, non-bailable warrant and the proclamation to procure the
presence of a person who is either absconding or is concealing
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed.
35. In the present case as the materials on the record
would show, the dead body of the victim was recovered from a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
river after about five days and thereafter her postmortem was
conducted. It was kept in the Sanhaula Police Station. The Police
Officer who had recovered the dead body was the Officer-in-
Charge of the Sanhaula Police Station but despite the fact that he
was one of the charge-sheet witnesses, he did not appear. The
inaction on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Bhagalpur is also evident.
36. In the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines
Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, IN RE vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 598, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided the Draft Criminal Rules on
Practice, 2021. The Rules are to be made part of the rules
governing the criminal trials. Directions in this regard have been
issued to all the High Courts and the State Governments.
The Draft Criminal Rules on Practice, 2021 is as under:-
"DRAFT CRIMINAL RULES ON PRACTICE, 2021
CHAPTER I : INVESTIGATION
1. Body sketch to accompany medico-legal
certificate, post-mortem report and inquest report.--
Every medico-legal certificate, post-mortem report
shall contain a printed format of the human body on
its reverse and injuries, if any, shall be indicated on
such sketch.
Explanation: The printed format of the human body
shall contain both a frontal and rear view of the human
body as provided in Annexure A.
2. Photographs and videographs of post-mortem in
certain cases.--(i) In case of death of a person in
police action [under Section 46, Criminal Procedure12
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
Code, 1973 ("CrPC") or Sections 129 to 131 CrPC] or
death while in police custody, the Magistrate or the
investigating officer as the case may be, shall inform
the hospital or doctor in charge to arrange for
photographs or videography for conducting the post-
mortem examination of the deceased. The photographs
of the deceased shall also be arranged to be taken in
all cases.
(ii) Such photograph and videographs shall be taken
either by arranging a police photographer or a
nominated photographer of the State Government, and
where neither of the above are available, an
independent or private photographer shall be engaged.
(iii) Such photographs or videographs shall be seized
under a panchnama or seizure memo and all steps
taken to ensure proper proof of such
photographs/videographs during trial.
(iv) The investigating officer shall ensure that such
photographs and videographs, if taken electronically,
are seized under a panchnama or seizure memo and
12steps are taken to preserve the original, and ensure
that certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, 1872 is obtained and taken to be proved during
trial.
(v) The video or photographs shall be stored on a
separate memory card, accompanied by a duly
certified certificate under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872.
(vi) Where post-mortems are recorded in electronic
form, the file containing the post-mortem proceedings,
duly certified, should be placed with the memory card
as an attachment unless individual memory cards are
not capable of being produced before court.
3. Scene mahazar/spot panchnama.--(i) A site plan
of the place of occurrence of an incident shall be
appended by the investigating officer to the scene
mahazar or spot panchnama.
(ii) The site plan shall be prepared by the investigating
12officer by hand, and shall disclose:
(a) the place of occurrence,
(b) the place where the body (or bodies) was/were
found,
(c) the place where material exhibits and/or weapons,
(d) bloodstains and/or body fluids had fallen,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
(e) the place where bullet shells, if any, were found or
have caused impact,
(f) the source of light, if any, and
(g) adjoining natural and man-made structures or
features such as walls, pits, fences, trees/bushes, if
any, and
(h) elevation of structures and their location.
(iii) The preparation of this sketch by the investigating
officer shall be followed by a scaled site plan prepared
by police draftsman, if available, or such other
authorised or nominated draftsman by the State
Government, who shall prepare the scaled site plan
after visiting the spot.
(iv) The relevant details in the mahazar or panchnama
shall be marked and correlated in the said site plan.
4. Supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and
208 CrPC.--(i) Every accused shall be supplied with
statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and
164 CrPC and a list of documents, material objects
and exhibits seized during investigation and relied
upon by the investigating officer (IO) in accordance
with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC.
Explanation : The list of statements, documents,
material objects and exhibits shall specify statements,
documents, material objects and exhibits that are not
relied upon by the investigating officer.
CHAPTER II : CHARGE
5. The order framing charge shall be accompanied by
a formal charge in Form 32, Schedule II CrPC to be
prepared personally by the Presiding Officer after
complete and total application of mind.
CHAPTER III : TRIAL
6. Recording of evidence : Procedure.--(i) The depo-
sitions of witnesses shall be recorded, in typed format,
if possible. The record of evidence shall be prepared
on computers, if available, in the court on the dictation
of the Presiding Officer:
Provided that in case the language of deposition is to
be recorded in a language other than English or the
language of the State, the Presiding Officer shall
simultaneously translate the deposition either himself
or through a competent translator into English.
(ii) The deposition shall be recorded in the language of
the witness and in English when translated as provided
in Clause 6(i).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
(iii) The depositions shall without exception be read
over by the Presiding Officer in court. Hard copy of
the testimony so recorded duly signed to be a true
copy by the Presiding Officer/court officer shall be
made available free of cost against receipt to the
accused or an advocate representing the accused, to
the witness and the prosecutor on the date of
recording.
(iv) A translator shall be made available in each court
and Presiding Officers shall be trained in the local
languages, on the request of the Presiding Officer.
(v) The Presiding Officers shall not record evidence in
more than one case at the same time.
7. Recording of evidence : Format of witnesses.--(i)
The deposition of each witness shall be recorded
dividing it into separate paragraphs assigning
paragraph numbers.
(ii) Prosecution witnesses shall be numbered as PW 1,
PW 2, etc. in seriatim. Similarly, defence witnesses
shall be numbered as DW 1, DW 2, etc. in seriatim.
The court witnesses shall be numbered as CW 1, CW
2, etc. in seriatim.
(iii) The record of depositions shall indicate the date
of the chief examination, the cross-examination and
re-examination.
(iv) The Presiding Officers shall wherever necessary
record the deposition in question and answer format.
(v) Objections by either the prosecution or the defence
counsel shall be taken note of and reflected in the
evidence and decided immediately, in accordance with
law, or, at the discretion of the learned Judge, at the
end of the deposition of the witness in question.
(vi) The name and number of the witness shall be
clearly stated on any subsequent date, if the evidence
is not concluded on the date on which it begins.
8. Exhibiting of material objects and evidence.--(i)
Prosecution exhibits shall be marked as Exhibit P-1,
P-2, etc. in seriatim. Similarly, defence exhibits shall
be marked as Exhibit D-1, D-2, etc. in seriatim. The
court exhibit shall be marked as Exhibit C-1, C-2, etc.
in seriatim.
(ii) To easily locate the witness through whom the
document was first introduced in evidence, the exhibit
number shall further show the witness number of such
witness after the exhibit number. If an exhibit is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
marked without proper proof, the same shall be
indicated by showing in brackets (subject to proof).
Explanation : If Prosecution Witness 1 (PW 1)
introduces a document in evidence, that document
shall be marked as Exhibit P-1/PW 1. If proper proof
is not offered for that document at the time when it is
marked, it shall be marked as Exhibit P-1/PW 1
(subject to proof). The second document introduced by
PW 1 will be Exhibit P-2/PW 1.
(iii) The material objects shall be marked in seriatim
as MO 1, MO 2, etc.
9. Subsequent references to accused, witness,
exhibits and material objects.--(i) After framing of
charges, the accused shall be referred to only by their
ranks in the array of accused in the charge-sheet and
not by their names or other references except at the
stage of identification by the witness.
(ii) After recording the deposition of witnesses,
marking of the exhibits and material objects, while
recording deposition of other witnesses, the witnesses,
exhibits and material objects shall be referred to by
their numbers and not by names or other references.
(iii) Where witness cited in the complaint or police
report are not examined, they shall be referred to by
their names and the numbers allotted to them in the
complaint or police report.
10. References to statements under Section 161 and
164 CrPC.--(i) During cross-examination, the
relevant portion of the statements recorded under
Section 161 CrPC used for contradicting the
respective witness shall be extracted. If it is not
possible to extract the relevant part as aforesaid, the
Presiding Officer, in his discretion, shall indicate
specifically the opening and closing words of such
relevant portion, while recording the deposition,
through distinct marking.
(ii) In such cases, where the relevant portion is not
extracted, the portions only shall be distinctly marked
as prosecution or defence exhibit as the case may be,
so that other inadmissible portions of the evidence are
not part of the record.
(iii) In cases, where the relevant portion is not
12extracted, the admissible portion shall be distinctly
marked as prosecution or defence exhibit as the case
may be.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
(iv) The aforesaid rule applicable to recording of the
statements under Section 161 shall mutatis mutandis
apply to statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC,
whenever such portions of prior statements of living
persons are used for contradiction/corroboration.
(v) Omnibus marking of the entire statement under
Sections 161 and 164 CrPC shall not be done.
11. Marking of confessional statements.--The
Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible
portion of Section 8 or Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
1872 is marked and such portion alone is extracted on
a separate sheet and marked and given an exhibit
number.
Chapter IV : The Judgment
12. Every judgment shall contain the following:
(i) Start with a preface showing the names of parties as
per Form A to the Rules.
(ii) A tabular statement as per Form B to the Rules.
(iii) An appendix giving the list of prosecution witnesses,
defence witnesses, court witnesses, prosecution exhibits,
defence exhibits and court exhibits and material objects
as per Form C to the Rules.
13. In compliance with Sections 354 and 355 CrPC, in
all cases, the judgments shall contain:
(i) the point or points for determination,
(ii) the decision thereon, and
(iii) the reasons for the decision.
14. In case of conviction, the judgment shall separately
indicate the offence involved and the sentence awarded.
In case there are multiple accused, each of them shall be
dealt with separately. In case of acquittal and if the
accused is in confinement, a direction shall be given to
set the accused at liberty, unless such accused is in
custody in any other case.
15. In the judgment the accused, witnesses, exhibits and
material objects shall be referred to by their nomencla-
ture or number and not only by their names or otherwise.
12Wherever, there is a need to refer to the accused or
witnesses by their name, the number shall be indicated
within brackets.
16. The judgment shall be written in paragraphs and each
paragraph shall be numbered in seriatim. The Presiding
Officers, may, in their discretion, organise the judgment
into different sections.
CHAPTER V : MISCELLANEOUS
17. Bail.--(i) The application for bail in non-bailable
cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the
application is not disposed off within such period, the
Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the
order itself. Copy of the order and the reply to the bail
application or status report (by the police or
prosecution) if any, shall be furnished to the accused
and to the accused on the date of pronouncement of
the order itself.
(ii) The Presiding Officer may, in an appropriate case
in its discretion insist on a statement to be filed by the
prosecutor in charge of the case.
18. Separation of prosecutors and investigators.--
The State Governments shall appoint advocates, other
than Public Prosecutors, to advise the investigating
officer during investigation.
19. Directions for expeditious trial.--(i) In every
enquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as
expeditiously as possible, and, in particular, when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same
shall be continued from day-to-day until all the
witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless
the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond
the following day to be necessary for reasons to be
recorded. [Section 309(1) CrPC]. For this purpose, at
the commencement, and immediately after framing
charge, the court shall hold a scheduling hearing, to
ascertain and fix consecutive dates for recording of
evidence, regard being had to whether the witnesses
are material, or eyewitnesses, or formal witnesses or
are experts. The court then shall draw up a schedule
indicating the consecutive dates, when witnesses
would be examined; it is open to schedule recording of
a set of witness' depositions on one date, and on the
next date, other sets, and so on. The court shall also,
before commencement of trial, ascertain if the parties
wish to carry out admission of any document under
Section 294, and permit them to do so, after which
such consecutive dates for trial shall be fixed.
(ii) After the commencement of the trial, if the court
finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the
commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it
may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded
postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it
thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable. If
witnesses are in attendance no adjournment or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
postponement shall be granted, without examining
them, except for special reasons to be recorded, in
writing. [Section 309(2) CrPC].
(iii) Sessions cases may be given precedence over all
other work and no other work should be taken up on
Sessions days until the Sessions work for the day is
completed. A Sessions case once posted should not be
postponed unless that is unavoidable, and once the
trial has begun, it should proceed continuously from
day today till it is completed. If for any reason, a case
has to be adjourned or postponed, intimation should be
given forthwith to both sides and immediate steps be
taken to stop the witnesses and secure their presence
on the adjourned date.
37. The Draft Criminal Rules, even if not incorporated in
the Rules governing the Criminal Trial Rules, provides at least a
guidance to the trial court as to how the trials in a criminal case be
taken up.
Section 311 of the CrPC, 1973 reads as under:-
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine
person present.-
Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a
witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not
summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any
person already examined; and the Court shall summon and
examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his
evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of
the case."
38. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC has been
discussed in the case of V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar
reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661. Paragraph '14' and '15' of the
judgment reads as under:-
"14. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there
may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from
either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential
to the just decision of the case. The significant expression
that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other
proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in
mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section
311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said
"wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while
exercise of judicious discretion".
15. The principles related to the exercise of the power under
Section 311 CrPC have been well settled by this Court in Vi-
jay Kumar v. State of U.P.2: (SCC p. 141, para 17).
"17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon
the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms,
the discretionary power under the said section can be
invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary
power should be exercised consistently with the
provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal
law. The discretionary power conferred under Section
311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by
the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Before
directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt
Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High Court did
not examine the reasons assigned by the learned
Special Judge as to why it was not necessary to
examine her as a court witness and has given the
impugned direction without assigning any reason."
39. The case of V.N. Patil (supra) was under Sections
304B and 302 IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohi-
bition Act. In the said case Public Prosecutor had filed an applica-
tion under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC which was
allowed by the learned trial court. The High Court upset the order
of the trial court summoning the witnesses but the Hon'ble
Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial court.
2. (2011) 8 SCC 136 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 371 : (2012) 1 SCC L&S 240]
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
40. In the present case, however, the Public Prosecutor
who conducted the case at Bhagalpur was not acting with due
diligence and care. The records speak for themselves. No summon
was issued to the other prosecution witnesses, no explanation
came from the two police personnel who were charge-sheet
witnesses, even Senior Superintendent of Police did not act on
receipt of the letter from the court. In fact the FIR itself was
registered after the informant made a complaint to the Dy.SP.
41. The judicial conscience of this Court is totally
disturbed on finding the kind of insensitiveness on the part of the
investigating agency and the Public Prosecutor who were involved
in this case. The trial court seems to have acted in haste in closing
the prosecution evidence without taking care of it's own order
dated 08.11.2023 by which an explanation was called from the
I.O. The Court had a duty to find out the truth and for this purpose
the Presiding Officer of the trial court was required to exhaust all
such procedures which were available to him in law to secure the
presence of the witnesses.
42. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that the judgment of acquittal in this case, having been passed in
haste is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.358 of 2024 dt.09-05-2025
43. This Court, accordingly sets aside the impugned
judgment. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure
presence of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law. The
Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur shall ensure presence
of the police officers who are charge-sheet witnesses of this case
on the dates fixed in the matter.
44. Respondent nos. 2 to 8 shall surrender in the trial court
within four weeks from today. Since the respondent nos. 3 to 8 were on
bail during trial, the learned trial court shall allow them to continue on
bail. Respondent No. 2 was in custody at the time of delivery of im-
pugned judgment, therefore, he would be taken into custody. It will be
open to respondent no.2 to pray for bail in the trial court.
45. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General
of Police, Bihar. This Court requests the DGP, Bihar to consider taking
appropriate action.
46. Let a copy of this judgment and the trial court's record
be sent down to the trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 28.03.2025
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date 09.05.2025
