Patna High Court
Jhalku Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.203 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2004 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
Jhalku Sah S/O Late Rangi Lal Sah Resident of Village- Madarpur, Police
Station- Mashrakh, District- Saran. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satinath Sah S/O Mewa Sah R/O Village- Madarpur, P.S- Mashrakh, Distt.-
Saran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Ms. Aashi Wats, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 10-09-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
against judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-9th, Saran,
Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2010, arising out of
Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004, whereby Respondent No. 2
has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of
Sections 302/34, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Vide order dated 03.04.2025, notices were issued to
the Respondent No. 2, upon which he appeared by filing
Vakalatnama through learned Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar
Yadav.
3. The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
informant, in brief, is that the informant used to sell fruits and
vegetables in Siliguri. On 11.09.2004 at about 09:00 p.m., the
daughter-in-law of the informant told the informant, that the
father of the informant had gone with the wife of Respondent
No. 2 to see her ailing buffalo last evening but had not returned.
The informant and his mother came to their village from Siliguri
and made a hectic search of his father(the deceased) but all the
efforts went in vain. On 14.09.2004, at about 14:00 p.m., on the
information about a foul smell near the Baans-Kathi of Heeralal
Ram, the informant and others went there and found the dead
body of his father in a decomposed condition, which was
identified from the piece of dhoti and chappal. The informant
raised suspicion that the wife of Respondent No. 2 with the help
of others has committed the alleged occurrence and threw the
dead body near the Baans-Kathi.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan report of the informant,
Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004 was instituted under
Sections 302/34, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and investigation
was taken up by the Police. The Police after investigation
submitted charge-sheet against Respondent No. 2 and,
accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of
Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether eight prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Kamla Manjhi,
PW2 Subhash Manjhi, PW3 Sudama Devi, PW4 Ganesh Sah,
PW5 Ashrafi Sah, PW6 Jhalku Sah (informant), PW7 Champa
Devi and PW8 Dr. Pankaj Kumar. The prosecution has also
produced certain documents which were marked as 'Exhibits'
i.e., Identification of Signature of the informant on fardbeyan,
Identification of Signature of the informant on protest petition,
Identification of Signature of the informant on application and
Identification of Signature of the Doctor on Bone Injury Report.
No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. After
closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after
conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused
persons.
6. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the
materials available on record, and the evidence produced before
the Court, acquitted the accused persons observing that the
alleged occurrence is based on circumstantial evidence and, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
the cases of circumstantial evidence, it is most important that
the links of the incident should be connected to each other. The
Trial Court has further observed that no one has seen the
deceased going with the accused and the accused has been
implicated only due to past enmity. The relevant part of the
impugned order under Paragraph-19 is reproduced as under:
"प्रसतु त घटना परररससरतजन साक् पर आधाररत है ।
परररससरतजन साक् मे ्ह सबसे महतवपूरर होता है रक
घटना की कडी एक दुसरे से जु डी होनी चारहए, ्रद
घटना की कडी एक दुसरे से नही जु डती है तो
अरभ्ोजन पक मु कदमे को सारबत करने मे रवफल होता
है । मृ तक को अरभ्ु कत के सास जाते हुए रकसी ने नही
दे खा है , मात्र पूवर दुशमनी के कारर अरभ्ु कत को फँसा
रद्ा ग्ा है । अरभ्ोजन की ओर से परररकत सारक्ो
के साक् मे न तो तारतम्ा है और न ही बल है बरलक
एक दुसरे के रवरोधाभाष है । ऐसी रससरत मे अरभ्ोजन
पक अरभ्ु कतगर के रवरद लगाए गए अं तगरत धारा
302/34, 201/34 को समपूरर - ्ु रकत-्ु कत सं देह से परे
सारबत नही कर सका है ।"
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of
Champa Devi (PW-7) that the deceased was taken away by
Respondent No. 2 and other on the pretext of seeing his ailing
she-buffalo and thereafter, his dead body was recovered. He
further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to
consider that there is no motive for the informant to falsely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
implicate Respondent No. 2.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment of the
learned trial court, and the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the accused before the learned Trial Court. Therefore,
the order of the learned Trial Court requires no interference in
the present case.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and the State and have also gone through the records of the case.
10. The sole question that requires consideration by
this Court is whether the impugned judgment requires any
interference by this Court.
11. As per the evidence of PW-1, the occurrence is
said to have been taken place approximately 8-10 years back at
around 08:00 p.m. in the night. PW-2 in his evidence has stated
that the alleged occurrence is of about 12-13 years ago, and he
saw the deceased at around 10:00 p.m. in the night. PW-3 in his
evidence has stated that the alleged occurrence is said to have
taken place 11 years back at around 09:00 p.m. in the night.
Therefore, there is a material inconsistency in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses regarding the date and time of
occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
12. As per the FIR, the date of the alleged
occurrence is between 10.09.2004 (when the accused was last
seen) and 14.09.2004 (when the body of the deceased has been
found). The FIR was instituted on the date of recovery of the
body, i.e., on 14.09.2004, and the post mortem examination was
conducted on the same day. In his evidence, the Doctor (PW-8)
had opined that the soft tissue of the body that was received was
decomposed, and death had taken place 1-2 months back from
the date of examination of the dead body. If the opinion of the
Doctor with regard to the death of the deceased is accepted, the
date of occurrence itself is not proved. Thus, from the evidence
of the Doctor, it can be said that no case was instituted for a
period of 1-2 months from the date of missing of the deceased.
In light of these facts, we find that the date of the alleged
occurrence has not been established by the prosecution in this
case.
13. Further, the Doctor opined that the cause of
death could not be ascertained by the him. In his evidence, PW-
3 has stated that the body of the deceased was found in a gunny
bag, which were cut into pieces. PW-4 has also stated in his
cross-examination that the body of deceased was found in
pieces, with legs and throat cutoff. However, from the post
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor, it is evident that a
decomposed body was recovered which was intact and not in
pieces. Thus, the manner of occurrence has also been not proved
by the prosecution in the present case.
14. In the present case, the sole independent
witness (PW-2) has been declared hostile, however he has stated
in his evidence that the he only saw the deceased going around
10 P.M. and has no further information regarding the alleged
occurrence. It is also important to note that in his statement
before the Trial Court, PW 2 has stated that he never made any
statement before Police. Further, the Investigating Officer has
also not been examined in the present case, and as such serious
doubts are cast on the date and the manner of the alleged
occurrence.
15. The present case is a case of circumstantial
evidence where the accused persons have been put to trial,
solely on basis of the fact that the deceased was last seen with
the wife of the respondent No. 2. However, PW-2 in his
evidence stated that he only saw the deceased going at 10:00
p.m. No other corroborative evidence has been conclusively
proved by the prosecution and the chain of circumstances have
not been completed and proved by the prosecution. In cases of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution needs to complete the
chain of circumstance in a manner where no gap is left. The
apex court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., as reported in
(1996) 10 SCC 193 held the following:
"21. In a case based on circumstantial
evidence, the settled law is that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is drawn should be fully proved and
such circumstances must be conclusive in
nature. Moreover, all the circumstances
should be complete and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the
proved circumstances must be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence......"
In the present case, the prosecution has been unable
to establish the date of the alleged occurrence, as the
prosecution witnesses have stated multiple date of occurrences
and the doctor has also opined a different date of alleged
occurrence in his evidence. Further, there are material
inconsistencies in the statements made regarding the recovery of
the body of the deceased, and as such the manner of occurrence
has not been proved. Thus, the prosecution has been unable to
prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.
16. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Wherever, any doubt is cast upon the case of the prosecution,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
17. In criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned court below is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the
Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which
the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal
against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal
presumption about the innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is
imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Surajpal Singh v. State, as reported in
1951 SCC 1207:-
"13. It is well established that in an appeal
under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the High Court has full power to
review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal was founded, but it is equally well
settled that the presumption of innocence of
the accused is further reinforced by his
acquittal by the trial court, and the findings
of the trial court which had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses and hearing their
evidence can be reversed only for very
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
substantial and compelling reasons."
18. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Supreme Court reiterated this
view and laid down the general principles to followed while
dealing with appeal against an order of acquittal. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is reproduced 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
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 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."
19. The Apex Court further reaffirmed this view in
Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, as reported in (2011) 9 SCC
479, Paragraphs 13 & 14 of which read as under:
"13. It is clear that in an appeal against
acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
judgment and order, interference by this
Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if
the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it
being the final court of fact, is fully
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own
decision. In other words, the law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal
provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to
be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the
competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the findings of acquittal.
14. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to
come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived
at by the trial court with respect to both facts
and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is
the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for
doing so. If the order is "clearly
unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference.........."
20. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered
with only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the
order is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025
interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must
not take a different view only because another view is possible.
It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanor of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
21. In view of the above, we do not find any
illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial
Court.
22. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
24. Before parting from this order, we would like to
mention that Ms. Aashi Wats has assisted this Court with her
best ability and full sincerity.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 16.09.2025
Transmission Date 16.09.2025
