[Cites 38, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.947 of 2024
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3994 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2017 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Yadav S/o Late Krishna Yadav R/o vill -
Akhtiyarpur, P.S. - Jagrajganj, Distt. - Bhojpur
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bikram Yadav S/o Shiv Keshwar Yadav R/o vill - Akhtiyarpur, P.S. -
Jagrajganj, Distt. - Bhojpur
3. Sita Ram Yadav S/o Shiv Keshwar Yadav R/o vill - Akhtiyarpur, P.S. -
Jagrajganj, Distt. - Bhojpur
4. Shiv Keshwar Yadav @ Fardha Yadav S/o Ramdat Yadav R/o vill -
Akhtiyarpur, P.S. - Jagrajganj, Distt. - Bhojpur
5. Nirdha Devi W/o Shiv Keshwar Yadav R/o vill - Akhtiyarpur, P.S. -
Jagrajganj, Distt. - Bhojpur
6. Rani Devi W/o Rajesh Yadav R/o vill - Akhtiyarpur, P.S. - Jagrajganj, Distt.
- Bhojpur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Ms. Malti Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shashtri, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P.
For Resp. No. 2-6 : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY)
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/informant,
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/60
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge -17, Ara (Bhojpur) in Session Trial
No. 424 of 2018 arising out Udwantnagar (Gajrajganj) P.S.
Case No. 124 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1643 of 2017) registered
under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. whereby and
whereunder Respondent nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the
learned trial court from the charges levelled against them under
Sections 302/34, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as "I.P.C.").
3. According to the written report of the
informant/PW4, i.e. Anil Kumar, the occurrence is of
28.04.2017
. Informant unfolded the story of prosecution to the
effect that informant's nephew Ankit Kumar @ Niraj Kumar
was taking meal on the fateful day at about 8 hours. In the
meanwhile, Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav of the village of
informant made a call on the mobile of informant's nephew
(victim) bearing mobile no. 8709831248 and asked the victim
to come to her house and collect Rs. 55,000/- which was taken
by her husband as debt. Thereafter, informant's nephew/victim
left the meal and started going to her house upon which query
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
was made by the informant as to why the victim was leaving
the house. The victim disclosed that wife of Rajesh Yadav has
called him to pay him money and he was going to collect the
said money. It is asserted by informant that victim did not
return back after 5-6 hours then the informant made a call upon
the mobile of the victim and the same was found to be
switched off. It is further asserted by informant that he went to
the house of Shiv Keshwar @ Fardu Yadav for making query
where he saw that Vikram Yadav and Sitaram Yadav were
talking with each other and when he asked them about the
whereabouts of Niraj Kumar/victim, Vikram Yadav replied in
abusive language that victim had not come here. It is further
asserted by the informant that he went to search in the
Samiyana (tent) of barat but he did not find the victim. On the
next morning, when informant enquired from his wife, he
learnt that the victim did not return home whole night. The
victim was not traced out despite contact being made with his
relatives on mobile. Further, case of the informant is that
during the search, on 01.05.2017 at about 7AM when
informant was going to grain yard (khaliyan), it was learnt
from the villagers that a dead body kept in a sack had been
thrown in a river. It is further asserted by informant that when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
he reached there, he saw that sack was tied by iron wire and
when the informant tried to untie the sack, villagers forbade the
informant to do so as information was given to thana and on
the arrival of police, sack was opened. It is further alleged that
in-charge of police station reached there near about 4-5 PM
and sack was untied and dead body was not in a position to be
identified. It was found that dead body had been burnt by acid
for disappearing the evidence. It is alleged that there was a key
at the waist of the dead body, due to which informant suspected
that it might be that of Neeraj and he stated to the SHO that the
informant's nephew was untraceable from his house since last
three days and it appears that the said key belongs to him,
whereafter the SHO told him to open the lock of his house by
using the recovered key and when he treid to open the lock
using that key, the lock of the house opened. It has also been
stated by informant that shirt and ganji was also recovered
from the dead body upon which there was print of "Bol Bum"
and the dead body was identified on the basis of key and attire
of the deceased.
4. On the basis of written statement of the
informant, Udwantnagar (Gajrajganj) P. S. Case No. 124 of
2017 dated 01.05.2017 was registered under Sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
302/201/34 of the I.P.C. and investigation was taken up by the
police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet
bearing number 54 of 2017 against respondent no. 2 and 4
under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC. The police also
submitted supplementary charge sheet bearing number 84 of
2017 against the respondent no. 3, 5, 6 and one Parvati
Kumari. Accordingly, cognizance was taken under the
aforesaid sections on 15.11.2017. By virtue of order dated
02.03.2019, case of the one of the co-accused Parvati Kumari
has been separated as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions on 10.12.2018. Charges have been framed under
Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC against Respondent No. 2
to 6 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home guilt of the
accused/respondent no. 2 to 6, the prosecution examined
altogether seven witnesses viz. PW-1 Savitri Devi (mother of
the deceased), PW-2 Anjani Kumar (cousin of deceased), PW-3
Rakesh Kumar @ Ajit Kumar ( elder brother of deceased), PW-
4 Anil Kumar (informant), PW-5 Balram Singh, PW-6 Dr.
Ashok Kumar Pandey, PW-7 Satyendra Kumar (Investigating
Officer of the case).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
6. At para 6 of the impugned judgment following
documentary evidence has been shown as exhibits :-
Ext 1 :- Signature of informant on
written statement
Ext 1/1:- Pagination done by S.H.O. on
written statement.
Ext ½ :- Signature of the then S.H.O. on
written statement
Ext. 2:- Post mortem report
Ext. 3 :- Signature of S.H.O. on Formal
FIR
Ext. 4 :- Charge sheet no. 54 of 2017
Ext. 5 :- Charge sheet no. 84 of 2017
7. By virtue of impugned judgment, the seriatim of
defence witnesses is as follows:-
DW1 - Sri Niwas Yadav, DW2 - Ram Pukar Yadav,
DW3 - Jai Prakash Singh and DW4 - Ajit Kumar. No
documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the
defence.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the
statements of the accused/respondents were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned trial
court has acquitted the accused/respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/informant has
submitted that the informant/PW-4 has categorically and
specifically stated that the victim left the house upon receiving
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
call from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav which is evident
from the FIR itself. Learned counsel further submits that
informant had made a query from the victim while leaving the
house at the relevant time as to where he was going, upon
which victim had replied that he was proceeding to collect
money from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. Learned counsel
further submits that victim left the house for collecting the
money from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav but he did not
return and informant made hectic search but the victim could
not be traced, however subsequently the dead body of victim
kept in a sack was recovered from a river in a decomposed
condition. Learned counsel further submits that statement of
other prosecution witnesses are quite consistent on the point
that informant's nephew/victim left the house upon call made
by Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav and the statement of victim
is quite relevant that he received call and went away to the said
place for collecting the money, whereafter he could not be
traced and on the said point, statement of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are
quite consistent that the victim had left the house for getting the
money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. In support
of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant/informant
has cited judgment of Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
reported in AIR 1939 Privy Council 47, wherein it has been
held as follows :-
The first question with which their
Lordships propose to deal is whether the
statement of the widow, that on March 20 the
deceased had told her that he was going to
Berhampur as the accused's wife had written
and told him to go and receive payment of his
dues, was admissible under Section 32(1) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That section
provides :
Statements written or verbal of
relevant facts made by a person who is dead...
are themselves relevant facts in the following
cases : (I) when the statement is made by a
person as to the cause of his death, or as to any
of the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death, in cases in which the
cause of that person's death comes into
question.
The circumstances must be
circumstances of the transaction : general
expressions indicating fear or suspicion
whether of a particular individual or otherwise
and not directly related to the occasion of the
death will not be admissible. But statements
made by the deceased that he was proceeding
to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to
his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was
going to meet a particular person, or that he
had been invited by such person to meet him
would each of them be circumstances of the
transaction, and would be so whether the
person was unknown, or was not the person
accused. Such a statement might indeed be
exculpatory of the person accused.
"Circumstances of the transaction" is a phrase,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
no doubt, that conveys some limitations. It is
not as broad as the analogous use in
"circumstantial evidence" which includes
evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other
hand narrower than "res gestae".
Circumstances must have some proximate
relation to the actual occurrence though as for
instance in a case of prolonged poisoning they
may be related to dates at a considerable
distance from the date of the actual fatal dose.
It will be observed that "the
circumstances" are of the transaction which
resulted in the death of the declarant. It is not
necessary that there should be a known
transaction other than that the death of the
declarant has ultimately been caused, for the
condition for the admissibility of the evidence
is that "the cause of (the declarant's) death
comes into question".
As the point was argued however and
as there seems to have been some discussion in
the Indian Courts on the matter it may be
useful to state that in their Lordships' view no
statement that contains self exculpatory matter
can amount to a confession, if the exculpatory
statement is of some fact which if true would
negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
Moreover, a confession must either admit in
terms the offence, or at any rate substantially
all the facts which constitute the offence. An
admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even
a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself
a confession, e.g. an admission that the
accused is the owner of and was in recent
possession of the knife or revolver which
caused a death with no explanation of any
other man's possession.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/informant
further submits that the relevant circumstances of the present
case are that the victim left the house for getting the money
back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav and since then he
could not be traced out and on the said point, such
circumstance is clearly reflected upon the fact that his dead
body kept in a sack was recovered from a river in a
decomposed condition. Learned counsel for the
appellant/informant has further submitted that the doctor, who
conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased, has found ante mortem injuries:-
(i) Incised wound :- 6.8 cm x1/2 cm x bone deep on
neck. On dissection of neck trachea was divided completely
except 0.4 cm Posteriorly. Both the Jugular vein were divided.
Anterior. neck muscle was divided.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/informant has
next submitted that in the opinion of doctor, cause of death
was CR failure due to haemorrhage and shock due to aforesaid
injury no. 1 and death was caused by sharp cutting weapon and
in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
there are sufficient materials to prove that victim was killed by
none else than the persons against whom allegations have been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
made to cause death. He further submits that I.O. has clearly
supported the version of prosecution and there is no reason to
disbelieve the version of all the prosecution witnesses, who
have clearly stated that victim left the house for getting the
money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav but he did
not return. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the judgment of acquittal passed by the concerned court is
neither tenable nor sustainable in the eyes of law or on facts,
hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
12. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the
very registration of the FIR clearly indicates as to how the
prosecution story has been prepared. The dead body kept in a
sack was recovered from a river in a decomposed condition and
same was not in a position to be identified by any one which is
evident from the FIR itself. He further submits that the
Investigating Officer has stated that no steps were taken to
ascertain whether the recovered dead body was that of a male
or a female. The dead body was recovered in a decomposed
condition, and in such circumstances, the alleged identification
of the dead body by the witnesses is wholly unreliable, riddled
with serious infirmities, and unsupported by any credible basis.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
It has not come to fore as to why Panchat was not prepared at
the place of recovery of dead body. Only inquest report was
prepared and the whole prosecution story has set into motion
after recovery of the dead body. If the said factum is taken into
account then no chain of circumstances is available on record
to prove the prosecution case. Basically, it is not a case of
circumstantial evidence also. He further submits that the
prosecution witnesses have adduced their evidence in a parrot-
like manner and stated that victim left the house for getting the
money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. However,
it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that all these witnesses
were present at the time when the victim allegedly left the
house. This glaring inconsistency renders their statements
highly doubtful and undermines the credibility of the
prosecution case. Learned APP further submits that the
statement of informant is quite contradictory with the FIR as
the informant while adducing evidence has stated that he is not
literate and apart from putting signature, he does not know how
to read and write, as such, he did not read the contents of FIR
nor the same was read over to him. In that circumstance, the
whole prosecution story is demolished. In this way, no chain of
circumstances has been proved by the prosecution and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
concerned court while recording the judgment of acquittal has
analyzed all the materials available on record and judgment of
acquittal is justified and legal and no interference is needed.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to 6 has
submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported
the case of the prosecution during cross examination. PW-1, in
paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, had stated that she had
no prior enmity with the respondents/accused. She has further
stated that she does not know the mobile number of the accused
persons from which the call was allegedly made to her son's
mobile phone. PW-1 has also stated that the call was received
at about 8:00 PM, but she has no knowledge of the
conversation that took place on the phone. She has stated that
immediately after the conversation, her son left the house and
she herself left the house approximately one minute after
departure of her son. She has further stated that she cannot
specify as to for how many hours there was light or darkness
during that night. Thus, PW-1 has not supported the initial
version of the prosecution story, which alleges that the victim
left the house to get the money back from Rani Devi, wife of
Rajesh Yadav as PW-1 has admitted that she has no knowledge
regarding the contents of the conversation that took place on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
mobile phone. Learned counsel further submits that PW-2 has
also stated that he himself had not heard the conversation
which took place on the mobile. He has further stated that he
had not seen the occurrence with his own eyes, nor did he see
anyone throwing the dead body. In this way, on the point of
conversation his statement is quite relevant that he has not
heard anything to the effect that that victim left the house for
getting the money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav.
Learned counsel further submits that during the course of
cross-examination, at para 5, PW3 has stated that despite being
submerged in water for two or three days, the dead body had
not been decomposed and was in good condition which is
totally inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution story.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to 6 has submitted that
during cross-examination PW-4/informant has stated in
paragraph 5 that the dead body was not decomposed and was in
good condition which is quite inconsistent with the initial
version of prosecution story. PW4 has categorically stated that
he is not literate and he can only affix his signature, hence he
had neither read the contents of the FIR nor were the same read
over to him; consequently, the very version attributed to PW-4
is under serious doubt as to who dictated the written statement,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
thereby rendering the prosecution story highly doubtful and
from the statement of PW-4 it is quite evident that respondents
no. 2 to 6 have been falsely implicated in the present case and
suitable prosecution story has been prepared to suit the
prosecution case. At para 3 of his cross-examination, PW-5 has
stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence and
occurrence had not taken place in his presence. In this way, he
is a hearsay witness. Learned counsel further submits that PW-
7 is investigating officer of the case and he has stated that dead
body was found in a decomposed condition and the statement
of PW-7 is quite inconsistent with other prosecution witnesses
as also FIR itself clearly reveals that the dead body was not
identified though it is claimed that it was identified by virtue of
key and attire. There was no seizure list of attire as well as key.
In this way, whole prosecution story since the time of inception
creates doubt and there is no chain of circumstance as the very
prosecution story begins with the recovery of dead body which
was in a decomposed condition and prosecution story has been
prepared to suit the case of the prosecution. In the light of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of
acquittal passed by the concerned court is justified and legal.
Hence, it is submitted that no interference is required.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
14. It is well settled law that in a criminal appeal
against acquittal, what the Appellate Court has to examine is
whether the finding of the learned trial court is perverse and
prima facie illegal. Once the Appellate Court comes to a
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 & Ors. Versus The State reported in 1952 SCR 193,
paragraph 13 of which reads as under:
"..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 substantial and
compelling reasons."
15. In the case of Ghurey Lal versus State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in paragraph 75,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said view and
observed as under:
"The trial Court has the advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses
who have given evidence, therefore, the
appellate court should be slow to interfere
with the decisions of the trial court. An
acquittal by the trial court should not be
interfered with unless it is totally perverse
or wholly unsustainable."
16. From perusal of the FIR, it is crystal clear that
occurrence took place on 28.04.2017 and FIR was lodged on
01.05.2017, however there is no plausible explanation as to
why the delay has been caused in lodging the FIR. While
narrating the story of prosecution informant himself has stated
that victim left the house on 28.04.2017 for getting the money
back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav but he did not
return. Even informant did not take any pain to register sanha
with the concerned thana and after recovery of the dead body,
the FIR was lodged. As per version of the informant, the victim
left the house on 28.04.2017 and the dead body was recovered
on 01.05.2017, however the gap in between of about four days
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
has not been explained by the informant. The manner in which
the occurrence has been depicted by the informant creates
doubt since no plausible explanation has been given. The dead
body was recovered in a decomposed condition which is quite
evident from the initial version of the prosecution story but
informant has claimed that the dead body was identified by key
as well as attire recovered from the dead body of the deceased.
Even though dead body was identified on the basis of attire and
key but there is no seizure list of attire and key on record nor
there is any material exhibit with regard to seizure list related
to attire and key. Even inquest report has not been exhibited as
is evident from the judgment of the trial court itself. The
informant/PW-4, who is the star witness of this case, has taken
a U-turn while adducing evidence before the court as during the
course of cross- examination in para-5 he has stated that he is
not literate and apart from putting signature, he does know how
to read and write and as such, he did not read the contents of
FIR nor the same was read over to him. In this way, whole
prosecution story becomes doubtful.
17. The question which arises for consideration
is :-
Whether the prosecution has proved the case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt ?
18. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and screen
out the evidence of the witnesses adduced before the trial court
in the light of the offence punishable under Sections
302/201/34 of the IPC :-
19. PW4/ Anil Kumar is informant of the case. He
has stated in examination-in-chief that the occurrence took
place on 28.04.2017 and he was at his house and Niraj/victim
was also at home and taking meal. He has further stated that he
had asked victim where he was going, upon which victim
replied that Rani Devi had called and asked him to come and
receive Rs. 55,000/-, hence he was going to collect the same.
19.1. During the course of cross-examination, in
para 4 PW-4 has admitted that he had not himself heard the
conversation between Rani Devi and the deceased. He has also
admitted that he has no knowledge that the wife of accused has
any mobile and if she has any mobile phone, he has no
knowledge regarding the mobile number. In paragraph 5, he
has stated that he has no knowledge of the month or year in
which any money was allegedly given by the informant's
nephew to the wife of the accused. He has further stated that no
monetary transaction ever took place in his presence. He has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
also admitted that the dead body of his nephew was recovered
on the fourth day and during this period, he neither made any
sanha at the police station nor lodged any information
regarding the recovery of the dead body. He further stated that
the dead body was not decomposed and was in good condition.
He further stated that he is not literate and he can only affix his
signature and that neither did he read the contents of the FIR
nor were the same read over to him.
19.2. From a perusal of evidence adduced by
PW4/informant, it is crystal clear that in the initial version of
prosecution story, he has pointed out the mobile number of
victim upon which call was received but while deposing before
the Court, he has not given detail of mobile number upon
which call from other side was received. In initial version of
prosecution story, he has stated that motive behind leaving the
house was to get back the money from Rani Devi, wife of
Rajesh Yadav but while adducing evidence before the court at
para 5 of cross-examination he has stated that he has no
knowledge regarding any monetary transaction. In initial
version of prosecution story, it was stated that dead body was in
a decomposed condition but in para 5 of cross examination
PW-4 has stated that dead body was not in a decomposed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
condition rather it was in good condition. In initial version of
prosecution story, it is stated that as the dead body was in a
decomposed condition, so dead body was identified on the
basis of attire and key recovered from the deceased but on the
said point, there is no seizure list and statement of Investigating
Officer is also silent on the said point. During cross
examination, PW-4 has stated that he is not literate and apart
from putting his signature, he does know how to read and write
and as such, he has not read the contents of FIR nor the same
was read over to him. Keeping in view the statement of PW4,
who is the star witness of the prosecution story, the same
suffers from infirmities, inconsistencies and contradictions. In
this way, the statement of PW4 is neither convincing nor
trustworthy.
20. PW1/ Savitri Devi is mother of the
victim/deceased. During the course of examination-in-chief,
she has stated that the occurrence took place on 28.04.2017 at
about 8:00 PM and she was at her house at the relevant time.
She has further stated that her son was taking meal at house,
meanwhile, a call was received on mobile number of her son.
On query, her son replied that Rani Devi had made a call on
phone and asked him to come and take back the due money and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
he was going to get the due money. Thereafter, her son left the
house for getting the due amount of money. Thereafter, PW-1
went outside to answer the nature's call. She has further stated
that after her son went outside, she saw that the accused-
respondents were at their door, where Niraj/victim had also
arrived to collect his due amount and the victim entered their
house and thereafter, she went to answer the nature's call. She
has further stated that when she returned after 15 minutes, she
called Niraj at Rani Devi's door to which Vikram Yadav replied
that she should go and Niraj would leave later. Thereafter, she
went home and after taking meal she fell asleep but Niraj did
not return after 3-4 hours and when she woke up, she did not
find Niraj at home and then, she woke her brother-in-law
Anil/informant and told him that Niraj had gone to
Shivkeshwar's house to collect the due money but has not
returned yet. She further stated that she tried calling Niraj on
his mobile phone, but his mobile was switched off. Later on,
dead body kept in a sack was recovered from river.
20.1. During the course of cross-examination, in
Para 4 PW-1 has stated that she did not know regarding the
conversation which took place on mobile. She has further
stated that she cannot point out as to for how many hours there
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
was light and how many hours there was darkness on that
night. In para 5, she has stated that after leaving her house, she
did not meet anyone until she reached the accused-respondents'
door. She has further stated that she returned to her house after
20 minutes and after returning home, she did not speak to any
other family member and after taking meal she went to sleep.
She has stated that she has no enmity with anyone, except the
accused-respondents. She further stated that the dead body of
victim was recovered after three days of the occurrence in a
decomposed condition due to remaining in water and it is very
difficult to identify the same. She has further stated that she did
not see anyone killing her son or throwing the dead body of her
son.
20.2. From a perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is
clear from her statement in examination-in-chief that she saw
that the accused-respondents were at their door, which is quite
divergent from her statement in cross-examination in which she
has stated that after leaving her house, she did not meet anyone
until she reached the accused-respondents' door and after
returning to her house, she did not speak to any other family
member and after taking meal she went to sleep but during the
course of examination-in-chief, she has stated that she talked
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
with her brother-in-law/informant. During the course of cross-
examination, she has further stated that she cannot point out as
to for how many hours there was light and how many hours
there was darkness on that night. In this way, statement of PW1
during cross-examination is inconsistent with the statement
made during the course of examination-in-chief. She has also
stated in her cross-examination that her son went away from
house on the call received by her son but she has no knowledge
regarding the conversation which took place on the mobile
between the accused as well as her son. The very initial version
of prosecution story as stated by the informant is not
corroborated even by the statement of PW1 as she has no
knowledge regarding the contents of conversation which took
place between the accused and the victim. She has also stated
that she had not seen anybody killing her son or throwing dead
body of her son. Prudently and pragmatically, it is
inconceivable that P.W. 1 saw the entry of her son in the house
of accused respondents, whereafter her son did not return back
for three days but, surprisingly, no sanha has been registered
and no steps were taken to get her son back. In this way, it is
wholly beyond the realm of credibility that PW1, mother of the
victim, despite allegedly having seen her son enter the house of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
accused respondents and noticing that he did not return,
neither took any step to recover him nor has made any
averment in her evidence, explaining such unnatural and
inexplicable inaction.
21. PW-2 / Anjani Kumar is cousin of the victim.
He has stated that he was sitting on the terrace and studying,
and Ankit/victim was having dinner there. Ankit said that he
has received a call from Shivkeshwar Yadav's house, asking
him to collect the dues amount. Ankit then ate a little and left.
He has further stated that he asked Ankit where he was going,
on which Ankit replied that he was going to Shivkeshwar
Yadav's house. After a while, his elder mother (aunt) went
outside and saw Ankit entering Shivkeshwar Yadav's house.
She then returned home and went to sleep. Upon waking up
four or five hours later, she realized that her son had not
returned. She informed father of PW2, Anil Yadav, that Ankit
had gone to Shivkeshwar Yadav's house and has not come
back. Thereafter, father of PW2, went to Shivkeshwar Yadav's
house, but the family members of Shivkeshwar Yadav abused
him and ousted him. He has further stated that the next
morning, he along with other began to search for the victim. He
has further stated that on the 1st day of the month villagers
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
disclosed that a dead body tightly wrapped in a sack was lying
in the river, upon which he informed Gajrajganj Police Station
about the incident and upon opening the sack, it was found that
the dead body was that of Ankit.
21.1. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that on the night of the incident, he did not have any
conversation with anyone regarding the incident. He has further
stated that he did not have any conversation about the incident
with any other person residing in between his house and the
respondents' house. He has further stated that on the night of
the incident, he did not see any person of the village. He has
further stated that he knows the mobile number of the deceased
on which conversation took place on the day of the incident but
he does not remember from which mobile number the
conversation was made. He has further stated that he himself
had not heard the conversation that took place on the mobile.
He has also stated that he had not seen the occurrence with his
own eyes nor did he see anyone throwing the dead body of the
deceased.
21.2. From a perusal of the evidence adduced by
PW2, it is evident that he was unaware of the contents of the
conversation that allegedly took place on mobile phone
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
between the accused and the victim as he himself admitted that
he did not hear the said conversation and in the night of the
incident, he did not see anyone of his village. Attention was
drawn regarding the decomposition of dead body, which was
denied by the said witness but it was admitted that the dead
body was in a good condition. P.W. 2 has stated that though the
dead body was recovered upon information given by villagers
but he cannot point out the name of the villagers. It has been
admitted by PW2 that neither he has seen the occurrence nor
did he see anyone throwing the dead body of the victim. It is
evident that he was unaware of the contents of the conversation
that allegedly took place on mobile phone between the accused
respondents and victim; he himself admitted that he did not
hear the said conversation. PW2 himself has admitted that he
was reading on the roof and the victim was taking meal. It is
not evident from the FIR that while victim was taking meal,
PW2 was also there and was reading on the roof. In this way,
the claim of PW2 is without any substance. It is wholly
unnatural and highly improbable that while victim was
allegedly eating, PW2 was engaged in his work and the victim
would have interacted with him at the time of departure and
disclosed as to where he was going; such conduct does not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
reflect the normal or natural behaviour of an ordinary or
prudent person.
22. PW3/ Sri Rakesh Kumar @ Ajit Kumar is the
elder brother of the victim. He has stated that the occurrence is
of 28.04.2017 and 01.05.2017. He has further stated that on
28.04.2017, Rani Devi called his younger brother Neeraj
Kumar on his mobile at 8.00 pm, whereafter he asked his
brother where he was going upon which his brother replied that
Rani Devi had called him to give Rs. 55,000/-. He has further
stated that his brother went to the house of Rani Devi to collect
the money. He has further stated that his mother also followed
his younger brother and when his mother returned after
answering the nature's call, she enquired from Vikram Yadav
about Neeraj, to which Vikram replied that she should go and
Neeraj would leave later. After that, his mother Savitri Devi
came to his house. After 3-4 hours, when his mother Savitri
Devi woke up, it was around 11:00-12:00 PM, and his uncle
Anil Yadav asked why Neeraj hadn't returned yet. After that, he
along with his uncle Anil Kumar went to look for the victim.
He has further stated that he along with his uncle went to
Shivkeshwar's door and asked Shivkeshwar Yadav upon which
Shivkeshwar Yadav, Vikram Yadav, Nirda Devi, Rani Devi, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
Parvati Kumari while talking among themselves had ousted
them while abusing. He has further stated that he along with his
uncle began to search his brother/victim and called the relatives
and found that the mobile phone of Neeraj was switched off.
On 01.05.2017 at 5:00 PM, dead body of Neeraj Kumar, kept in
a sack was recovered from river in presence of the in-charge
police station and the Mukhiya of the village. He has further
stated that he had no enmity with anyone including
Shivkeshwar Yadav, but Neeraj (victim) had given Rs. 55,000/-
to Shivkeshwar Yadav and the accused respondents committed
the murder of victim with intention of not returning the said
amount, destroyed the evidence, and disposed of the dead body
by packing it in a sack and throwing it into river.
22.1. During cross examination PW-3 has stated
that he can not specify date, month or year on which the victim
allegedly gave Rs. 55,000/- to Rajesh Yadav nor was the said
amount given in his presence. He has further stated that he also
does not know as to whether the said money was given in cash
or transferred through account. He has further stated that he
cannot point out the number of other mobile phone which was
used to call the deceased's mobile phone to the collect the
money. He has also stated that when a call came on Niraj's
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
mobile to collect the money, he was tying the buffalo and he
cannot state as to how long the conversation with Neeraj and
accused lasted. He has further stated that he did not see any of
the accused committing the crime. At para 5, he has stated that
the dead body had not decomposed despite remaining in water
for two to three days and dead body was in good condition.
22.2. From the perusal of the evidence adduced by
PW3, it is clear that he was not present when the call was
received by Niraj. PW3 has also stated that he was tying
buffalo and he has no knowledge as to how long the
conversation between the victim and accused continued.
Though, while leaving the house, the victim had intimated
PW3 that he was going to collect money but PW3 has admitted
that he had not disclosed the said fact to anyone. PW3 has
himself admitted that he was engaged in the work of tying
buffalo at the relevant time though in FIR it has not been
mentioned that when victim was eating, PW3 was also present
there and he himself claims that while departing, victim had
stated that he was going to collect money from Rani Devi, wife
of Rajesh Yadav. It is wholly unnatural and highly improbable
that while victim was allegedly eating and PW3 was at a
different place engaged in his work, the victim would have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
interacted with him at the time of departure and disclosed
where he was going; such conduct does not reflect normal or
natural behaviour of ordinary or prudent person.
23. PW5 /Balram Singh at para 3 of his cross-
examination, himself admits that he was not present at the time
of occurrence and the occurrence had not taken place in his
presence. In this way, he is a hearsay witness.
24. PW6 /Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has stated that
on 01.05.2017 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Ara and had
conducted postmortem of dead body of Ankit Kumar @ Niraj
and had found following ante mortem injuries:-
(i) Incised wound :- 6.8 cm x1/2 cm x
bone deep on neck. On dissection of neck trachea
was divided completely except 0.4 cm Posteriorly.
Both the Jugular vein were divided. Anterior. neck
muscle was divided.
(ii) Skull/Thorax- Brain paranchymma
and meninges were pale and normal. All the
viscera were pale and normal. Both the chamber
of Heart was empty.
(iii) Abdomen- All the viscera were
pale and normal. Stomach contain 180 ml. of semi
digested food material.
(iv) Urinary bladder contain 185 ml.
of formed urine.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
(v) Cause of death :- CR failure due to
haemorrhage and shock due to injury no. 1.
(vi) Weapon :- Sharp cutting.
(vii) Time since death-03 to 36 hrs.
24.1. From perusal of the evidence of PW6, it is
clear that the death was caused on account of CR failure due to
hemorrhage and shock due to injury no. 1.
25. PW7/ Satyendra Kumar is the investigating
office of the present case. He has stated that on 01.05.2017, he
was in-charge of the Udwantnagar Gajrajganj O.P. and he had
himself taken charge of investigation of Udwantnagar
Gajrajganj O.P. P.S. Case no. 124 of 2017. He has further stated
that he had inspected the place of occurrence and the place of
occurrence is Bhanas (Kudhwa River) situated in the West
Northern corner of Badkagaon Akhtiyar village under
Gajrajganj O.P. He has further stated that he found the dead
body of the victim in a decomposed condition. He has given
the following description of the boundary of the place of
occurrence :-
East :- Akhtiyapur villager
West :- Bhanas Dam on Kudhwa river
North :- Bhanas Dam
South :- Kudhwa River
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
25.1. PW7 has further stated that inquest report was
prepared by ASI Pawan Kumar Paswan and the same bears
signature of witness Anil Kumar Yadav and Pramod Kumar
Yadav including the signature of ASI Pawan Kumar Paswan.
He has further stated that he had recorded the re-statement of
informant as well as statement of Anjani Kumar, Rakesh
Kumar, Savitri Devi. He further states that he sent the dead
body to the hospital for the post mortem. In para 4, he has
stated that he was transferred to Rohtas District and he handed
over the charge of investigation to Police Sub-Inspector
Shankar Pandit but due to stay of transfer order, he again took
charge of the investigation and submitted charge sheet and
supplementary charge sheet against the accused/respondents. In
para 5, he has stated that formal FIR bears the signature of the
then Station House Officer, Udwantnagar Police Station and he
has identified the same which has been marked as Exhibit 3. He
has further stated that written application bears his endorsement
and he identifies the same, which has been marked as Exhibit
1/1. The written application bears the signature of the then
Station House Officer, Udwantnagar Police Station, Rajiv
Kumar and he identifies the same, which has been marked as
Exhibit ½. He has also stated that he put his signature on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
charge sheet number 54 of 2017 and supplementary charge
sheet number 84 of 2017, which he has identified and the same
have been marked as Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively.
25.2. During the course of cross-examination, at
para 7 he has stated that he did not prepare map of the place of
occurrence. He has further stated that he has not written in the
case diary that he had recorded the statement of any
independent witness. He has also stated that he did not make
any effort to conduct test on the decomposed dead body to
ascertain whether it was that of a male or a female. He has also
stated that he did not find anything except dead body of the
deceased at the place of occurrence. In paragraph 8, he has
stated that though witnesses have stated that the murder was
committed on account of monetary transaction but he did not
conduct detailed investigation on this point. He has further
stated that he did not investigate regarding the date on which
the money was allegedly taken or given. He did not record the
statement of any person residing adjacent to the victim. He also
did not conduct any investigation regarding whether actually
money was given or not.
25.3. From perusal of evidence of PW7
(Investigating Officer), it is clear that investigation of I.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
suffers from infirmity on the point of motive behind the
occurrence and delay in lodging the FIR. There is no seizure
list of attire or key by which the dead body was identified and
I.O. has not conducted investigation regarding call detail report
indicating conversation which took place between the accused
respondents and the victim. The manner in which the
investigation has been conducted reflects a lack of fairness,
objectivity and due diligence expected from an investigating
officer. The investigating officer has failed to adhere to the
mandatory procedural safeguards, thereby rendering the
investigation unreliable.
26. Defence has produced four witnesses who
defended the accused-respondents and stated that they have
been falsely implicated in the present case and they have
nothing to do with the alleged occurrence.
27. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal
and shall keep in mind the principles governing the cases of
appeal against acquittal. The principles have been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions.
28. In the case of H.D. Sundara and Others vs.
State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in paragraph 8, has held as follows :
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to
consider the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment State of Karnataka v.
H.K. Mariyapp, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar
5591 rendered by the High Court while
deciding an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"). The
principles which govern the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378
Cr.P.C can be summarized as follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to the
oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after
reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the
trial court is a possible view which could
have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order
of acquittal on the ground that another
view was also possible; and 8.5. The
appellate court can interfere with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt
and no other conclusion was possible."
29. In Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 4 SCC 415, Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to
several authorities has held as follows:
"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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
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."
( Emphasis Supplied)
30. In Murugesan Vs. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
" 18. Before proceeding any further it will be
useful to recall the broad principles of law
governing the power of the High Court under
Section 378 CrPC, while hearing an appeal
against an order of acquittal passed by a trial
Judge.
19. An early but exhaustive consideration of
the law in this regard is to be found in the
decision of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor
[(1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)]
wherein it was held that the power of the
High Court extends to a review of the entire
evidence on the basis of which the order of
acquittal had been passed by the trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
and thereafter to reach the necessary
conclusion as to whether order of acquittal is
required to be maintained or not. In the
opinion of the Privy Council no limitation on
the exercise of power of the High Court in
this regard has been imposed by the Code
though certain principles are required to be
kept in mind by the High Court while
exercising jurisdiction in an appeal against an
order of acquittal..................................
20. The principles of law laid down by the
Privy Council in Sheo Swarup(supra) have
been consistently followed by this Court in a
series of subsequent pronouncements
......................
21. A concise statement of the law on the
issue that had emerged after over half a
century of evolution since Sheo Swarup
( Supra) is to be found in para 42 of the
Report in Chandrappa v. State of
Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415
......................................................
......
32. In the above facts can it be said that the
view taken by the trial court is not a possible
view? If the answer is in the affirmative, the
jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere
with the acquittal of the appellant-accused, on
the principles of law referred to earlier, ought
not to have been exercised. In other words,
the reversal of the acquittal could have been
made by the High Court only if the
conclusions recorded by the learned trial court
did not reflect a possible view. It must be
emphasised that the inhibition to interfere
must be perceived only in a situation where
the view taken by the trial court is not a
possible view. The use of the expression
"possible view" is conscious and not without
good reasons. The said expression is in
contra23. Having dealt with the principles of
law that ought to be kept in mind while
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
considering an appeal against an order of
acquittal passed by the trial court, we may
now proceed to examine the reasons recorded
by the trial court for acquitting the accused in
the present case and those that prevailed with
the High Court in reversing the said
conclusion and in convicting and sentencing
the appellant-accused.
33. The expressions "erroneous", "wrong"
and "possible" are defined in Oxford English
Dictionary in the following terms:
"erroneous.-- wrong; incorrect.
wrong.--(1) not correct or true, mistaken.
(2) unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
possible.--(1) capable of existing, happening,
or being achieved.
(2) that may exist or happen, but that is not
certain or probable."
34. It will be necessary for us to emphasise
that a possible view denotes an opinion which
can exist or be formed irrespective of the
correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A
view taken by a court lower in the
hierarchical structure may be termed as
erroneous or wrong by a superior court upon a
mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of
the higher court would not take the view
rendered by the subordinate court outside the
arena of a possible view. The correctness or
otherwise of any conclusion reached by a
court has to be tested on the basis of what the
superior judicial authority perceives to be the
correct conclusion. A possible view, on the
other hand, denotes a conclusion which can
reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact
where it is agreed upon or not by the higher
court. The fundamental distinction between
the two situations have to be kept in mind. So
long as the view taken by the trial court can
be reasonably formed, regardless of whether
the High Court agrees with the same or not,
the view taken by the trial court cannot be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
interdicted and that of the High Court
supplanted over and above the view of the
trial court.
35. A consideration on the basis on which the
learned trial court had founded its order of
acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a
possible view. There may, however, be
disagreement on the correctness of the same.
But that is not the test. So long as the view
taken is not impossible to be arrived at and
reasons therefor, relatable to the evidence and
materials on record, are disclosed any further
scrutiny in exercise of the power under
Section 378 CrPC was not called for."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. In Hakeem Khan Vs. State of M.P., (2017) 5
SCC 719 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
" 9 [Ed. : Para 9 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./29/2017 dated
13-7-2017.] . Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
the trial court's judgment is more than just a
possible view for arriving at the conclusion of
acquittal, and that it would not be safe to
convict seventeen persons accused of the
crime of murder i.e. under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the Penal Code...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs.
State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 561, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after referring to relevant precedents, has
observed as follows:
"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the
scope of interference by an appellate Court for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court in favour of the accused has to be
exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible
and only the view consistent with the guilt of
the accused is possible from the evidence
available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere
with the judgment of acquittal would have to
record pertinent findings on the above factors if
it is inclined to reverse the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
(Emphasis Supplied)
33. It is a well-settled law that unless and until the
finding of the learned Trial Court is found to be perverse or
illegal / impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court
to interfere with the same and in order to reverse a finding of
acquittal, the view taken by the learned Trial Court must be
held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view.
Reference in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal
vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605 as also
to the one rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar,
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2623.
34. It would be apt to refer to yet another
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2022) 3
SCC 471, paragraphs No. 22, 25, 27 to 29 and 31 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
"22. In Atley v. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807], the
approach of the appellate court while considering a
judgment of acquittal was discussed and it was observed
that unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion
that the judgment of the acquittal was perverse, it could
not set aside the same. To a similar effect are the
following observations of this Court speaking through
Subba Rao, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Sanwat
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715]:-
"9. The foregoing discussion yields the following
results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo
Swarup [Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, 1934 SCC
OnLine PC 42 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)] afford a
correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a
case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the
different phraseology used in the judgments of this
Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling
reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons",
and (iii) "strong reasons" are not intended to curtail
the undoubted power of an appellate court in an
appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence
and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it
should not only consider every matter on record
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
having a bearing on the questions of fact and the
reasons given by the court below in support of its
order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on
those facts, but should also express those reasons in
its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal
was not justified."
The need for the aforesaid observations arose on
account of observations of the majority in Aher Raja
Khima v. State of Saurashtra [AIR 1956 SC 217] which
stated that for the High Court to take a different view on
the evidence "there must also be substantial and
compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was
wrong.
25. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225], spoke about the approach
of the appellate court while considering an appeal
against an order acquitting the accused and stated as
follows:-
"7. ... While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to
the question whether the findings of the trial court are
palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court
answers the above question in the negative the order
of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that
the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in
view of any of the above infirmities it can then -- and
then only -- reappraise the evidence to arrive at its
own conclusions."
The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is
to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In
another words, there should not be an acquittal of the
guilty or a conviction of an innocent person.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
27. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of
Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225] observed vis-à-vis the
powers of an appellate court while dealing with a
judgment of acquittal, as under:
"7. ... While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to
the question whether the findings of the trial court are
palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or
demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court
answers the above question in the negative the order
of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that
the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in
view of any of the above infirmities it can then -- and
then only -- reappraise the evidence to arrive at its
own conclusions.
28. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
[(2007) 4 SCC 415], highlighted that there is one
significant difference in exercising power while hearing
an appeal against acquittal by the appellate court. The
appellate court would not interfere where the judgment
impugned is based on evidence and the view taken was
reasonable and plausible. This is because the appellate
court will determine the fact that there is presumption in
favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get
the benefit of doubt but if it decides to interfere it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of
acquittal.
29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal in the following
words [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415]:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial court.
31. The circumstances under which an appeal would be
entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal
passed by a High Court may be summarised as follows:
31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering
with an order of acquittal, especially when the order of
acquittal has been confirmed up to the High Court. It is
only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an
absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally
erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case,
ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the
accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court,
exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution.[State of U.P. v. Sahai, (1982) 1 SCC 352]
Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are
prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has
been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal
charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further
examination of the case, even though it is held by a
superior court. [Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham,
(1979) 2 SCC 297] An appeal cannot be entertained
against an order of acquittal which has, after recording
valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an
unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies
acquittal. [State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh, 1991 Supp
(1) SCC]
31.2. However, this Court has on certain occasions, set
aside the order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The
circumstances under which this Court may entertain an
appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of
conviction, may be summarised as follows:
31.2.1. Where the approach or reasoning of the High
Court is perverse:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
(a) Where incontrovertible evidence has been rejected
by the High Court based on suspicion and surmises,
which are rather unrealistic. [State of Rajasthan v.
Sukhpal Singh, (1983) 1 SCC] For example, where
direct, unanimous accounts of the eyewitnesses, were
discounted without cogent reasoning. [State of U.P.
v. Shanker, 1980 Supp SCC 489]
(b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of
relatives, living in the same house as the victim, were
discounted on the ground that they were "interested"
witnesses.[State of UP v Hakim Singh, (1980)3SCC
55]
(c) Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved
by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of
personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate
the accused, when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to
grind in the said matter. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal
Singh, (1983) 1 SCC 393]
(d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim
was rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant
ground that they did not explain the injury found on
one of the persons present at the site of occurrence of
the crime. [Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham,
(1979) 2 SCC 297]
(e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic
standard of "implicit proof" rather than that of "proof
beyond reasonable doubt" and therefore evaluated the
evidence in a flawed manner. [State of U.P. v. Ranjha
Ram, (1986) 4 SCC 99]
(f) Where the High Court rejected circumstantial
evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious
theory, which were beyond the plea of the accused;
[State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah,
(1981) 3 SCC 610] or where acquittal rests merely in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt in
favour of the accused. [Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal
Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 445]
(g) Where the High Court acquitted the accused on
the ground that he had no adequate motive to commit
the offence, although, in the said case, there was
strong direct evidence establishing the guilt of the
accused, thereby making it unnecessary on the part of
the prosecution to establish "motive". [State of
A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah, (1986) 3 SCC 637]
31.2.2. Where acquittal would result is gross
miscarriage of justice:
(a) Where the findings of the High Court,
disconnecting the accused persons with the crime,
were based on a perfunctory consideration of
evidence, [State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh, 1989 Supp (1)
SCC 288] or based on extenuating circumstances
which were purely based in imagination and fantasy
[State of U.P. v. Pussu, (1983) 3 SCC 502].
(b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground
of delay in conducting trial, which delay was
attributable not to the tardiness or indifference of the
prosecuting agencies, but to the conduct of the
accused himself; or where accused had been acquitted
on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an
offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of
Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, (1981) 3
SCC 610]
35. In the present case, the occurrence took place on
28.04.2017 and nothing was done to recover the victim from
the house of the accused respondents, even Sanha was not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
registered and only after recovery of the dead body, apparently
the prosecution has cooked up a story to falsely implicate the
respondents accused. The time gap between the leaving of the
victim from his house i.e. 28.04.2017 and recovery of dead
body i.e. 01.05.2017 has not been explained by any of the
prosecution witnesses and only the initial version of the
prosecution story has been reiterated just to show that the
victim had left the house upon informing the prosecution
witnesses that he was going to get the money back from Rani
Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. It is intriguing as to why nothing
was done by the prosecution witnesses to recover the victim,
though all the prosecution-witnesses claim to have the
knowledge that the victim had gone to the house of Rani Devi,
wife of Rajesh Yadav who is residing adjacent to the house of
informant. PW-4 is informant of the case, who while narrating
the story of prosecution he has given a graphic detail as to how
the occurrence has taken place. He has tried to build up a story
to suit the facts and circumstances of the circumstantial
evidence but the story as narrated by the informant originates
with the recovery of the dead body in a decomposed condition.
Even the story of leaving the house by the victim for getting
the money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
proved by any of the prosecution witnesses. Since the
inception, the prosecution story has become doubtful as the
informant during the course of cross-examination has stated
that he is not literate and apart from putting his signature, he
does know how to read and write, as such he has not read the
contents of FIR nor the same was read over to him. The very
initial version of the prosecution story reflects that dead body
was found in a decomposed condition and dead body has been
identified on the basis of attire as well as key but there is no
seizure list of attire and key on record nor there is any material
exhibit with regard to seizure list related to attire and key. Even
inquest report has not been exhibited as is evident from the
judgment of the trial court itself. The very deposition of PW-
4/informant is full of doubt keeping in view the delay in
lodging the FIR coupled with the statements of witnesses
which are quite divergent. There is question mark regarding the
very motive behind the victim leaving the house and the
conversation which had taken place between the victim and the
accused, as there is nothing on record which gives details
regarding the conversation between the accused and victim. In
the initial version of the prosecution story, only the informant
has stated that the victim had left the house for getting the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav and never
returned. There is no cogent evidence regarding conversation
between victim and accused-respondents, leading to the victim
leaving the house and never returning back, thereafter. The
initial version of prosecution story is merely an afterthought as
the same originates after recovery of the dead body.
36. Now the question as raised by the appellant's
counsel is that whether the statement of victim is relevant in the
present case or not. From the perusal of records, it transpires
that there is a gap of four days between leaving the house and
recovery of dead body and the said gap has not been explained
by the prosecution, thus by virtue of Section 32 of the Evidence
Act, only those statements which have direct and proximate
nexus with death are admissible. Here, the very prosecution
story starts with recovery of dead body and prior to the
recovery of dead body, even, no sanha was registered by the
prosecution side. It is evident from the prosecution story that
victim left the house when call was received but no call detail
report regarding the conversation between the accused-
respondents and victim is available on record. It is asserted by
the informant that motive behind the occurrence was that the
victim gave Rs. 55,000/- to Rajesh Yadav. Even the said motive
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
has not been proved by any of the prosecution witnesses. All of
the prosecution witnesses have stated that while victim left the
house, he had interacted with the informant (PW4) and others,
such as PW 1, 2 and 3 but in initial version of prosecution
story it is asserted that when the victim was leaving his house,
he had interacted only with the informant and upon query being
made, the victim stated that he was going to collect money
from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. The statement of PW4
is quite contradictory as he himself has stated that he is not
literate and he can only affix signature and that neither he had
read the contents of the FIR nor were the same read over to
him. Consequently, the written report of PW4 is under serious
doubt, as to who dictated the written report, thereby rendering
the prosecution story highly doubtful. It is wholly unnatural
and highly improbable that while victim was allegedly eating
and other prosecution witnesses were engaged in their
respective work, victim would have interacted with each of
them, informing them of his departure and about his
destination; such conduct is not what a prudent man or
ordinary person would exhibit in normal course of human
behaviour coupled with the fact that victim left the house at 8
PM. The evidence of the informant as also other prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
witnesses are neither trustworthy nor convincing, as discussed
in foregoing paragraphs, thus suspicion, however strong cannot
substitute legal proof and in cases based on circumstantial
evidence, every link must be conclusively established and
remote and general statements of deceased are not admissible
under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we find that the statement of victim is not relevant
as the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally
different from the facts and circumstances of the case as cited
by learned counsel for the appellant and on the contrary the
contention of the learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is quite convincing.
37. After analyzing the evidence of the present
case, we find that this case is not based on direct evidence as
there is no eye witness account, which is evident from the FIR
itself. PW-4 who is narrator of the initial version, as stated in
the written report has unfolded the story of prosecution in a
sequence of events. In the first sequence, he reveals that the
victim left the house for getting the money back from Rani
Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav alone and no one was seen going
along with him and in the same breath, it is told by the
informant that victim left the house for getting the money back
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav and did not return back,
whereafter search was made but from perusal of record it is
found that the houses of respondents no. 2 to 6 are situated
adjacent to the house of the victim, in the same village but no
step was taken to recover the victim nor sanha was registered
to the effect that the victim left the house and never returned.
From perusal of the record it is found that a decomposed dead
body was recovered, which could not be identified but it is
claimed that by virtue of key and attire the dead body was
identified. The statement of PW-4 is full of contradictions,
infirmities and the question of raising finger against the
respondents-accused is merely a ballpark assessment as the
prosecution story has originated only after recovery of dead
body and no one has explained the time gap in between leaving
the house of victim and the recovery of dead body i.e. a huge
gap of about 4 days and the story of prosecution has been
prepared and cooked in order to implicate the respondents-
accused falsely.
38. We have to, in the present case, take into account
the circumstantial evidence, if any since there is no eye-witness
account of the alleged occurrence but each circumstance
(which may be relevant facts or fact in issue) should be proved
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
beyond reasonable doubt and the proved circumstance must
form complete chain. The chain of circumstances must
unerringly point towards the guilty of the accused i.e. it should
be only reasonable probability of causation of offence. Upon
analyzing the evidence of present case, it is found that neither
the statement of PW-4 nor the statement of any other
prosecution witnesses indicate that respondent nos. 2 to 6 were
last seen with the deceased at any point of time. From the
version of prosecution witnesses, victim was not seen with any
of the respondents-accused when he left his house for getting
the money back from Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav. In this
way, even the present case is not the case of last seen with the
deceased.
39. In the present scenario, Section-3 of the Indian
Evidence Act is relevant and first part thereof covers belief
which relates with direct evidence and the second part covers
the supposition relating to circumstantial evidence and
moreover, Section-3 of the said Act gives guidelines regarding
how to appreciate direct evidence and it is clearly mentioned as
to how the fact is proved. Section 3 of the said Act defines
'Proved' as follows:-
"Proved"-A fact is said to be proved
when, after considering the matters before it, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
Court either believes it to exist, or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to
act upon the supposition that it exists.
It is a clear cut guideline how to appreciate the direct
evidence and how to appreciate the circumstantial evidence. In
the first portion it is mentioned that a fact is said to be proved
when, after considering the matters before it, the court; either
believes it to exist and in the second part it is mentioned that
how a prudent man can make his supposition towards a
particular case. Thus, the words used in the section are-"a fact
is said to be proved when after considering the matter before
it"- the section does not warrant a court to consider only
evidence. For example a weapon of offence- a knife or gun- is
not evidence, oral or documentary but it still has to be
considered by the court. Again take for example, matters of
which judicial notice can be taken. These things are not to be
proved, but are matters permitted to be considered by the
court. Now, Section 3 talks about belief of a judge for a fact to
be proved and second part of section talks about probability of
such a degree that a prudent man would act upon supposition
that the fact exists. Thus a Judge should step into the shoes of a
prudent man. A common man would have many suppositions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
for the cause of occurrence in a case which is based on
circumstantial evidence. There are several circumstances which
are placed before the court but it is only based on supposition.
Then the court evaluates each supposition and when the court
has ruled out the suppositions, it is only such suppositions
which has the highest probability, should be relied upon and
taken as proved. This is how the fundamental principle in
respect of circumstantial evidence evolves.
40. Now coming back to the present case, we find
upon having examined the evidence led by the prosecution that
none of the witnesses are eye-witness to the alleged killing of
the deceased, hence we have to rely upon circumstantial
evidence. As discussed hereinabove in the preceding
paragraphs, none of the material circumstances, from which the
conclusion of the guilt of the accused/respondents no. 2 to 6 is
to be drawn have stood proved much less established and the
evidence on record do not lead us to draw an inference with
respect to the chain of circumstances being complete and all the
facts/evidence, as discussed above cumulatively attached
together do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the
respondent nos. 2 to 6 and we do not find that the chain is to
complete as not to lead to any reasonable ground for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. We
also find that the text laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 is not satisfied so
as to warrant interference in the impugned judgment of
acquittal and that too on the basis of scratchy and disjointed
evidence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubts.
41. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the trial
court has taken a plausible view based on the evidence
available on the record. The prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The view taken
by the trial court cannot be held to be either perverse or
impossible nor there is any occasion to consider material
evidence on record nor the findings of the learned trial court
are manifestly erroneous much less demonstrably unsustainable
nor there are substantial and compelling reasons much less
good and sufficient grounds for interfering with the impugned
judgment of acquittal. Under such circumstances, no case for
interference with the impugned judgment is made out.
42. In the result, the present criminal appeal,
preferred against the judgment of acquittal stands dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
43. Let the learned trial court records be sent back to
the concerned court.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/shahzad
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 12.02.2026.
Transmission Date 12.02.2026.
