Usha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 457 Patna

Patna High Court

Usha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 16 February, 2026

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.630 of 2025
                                   In
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3845 of 2023
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2017 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
     ======================================================
     Usha Kumari D/O Nityanand Singh R/O Village- Shiromani Tola, P.S-
     Pabatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
                                                        ... ... Appellant
                                 Versus
1.    The State of Bihar.
2.   Boudhu Singh S/O Narayan Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani Tola,
     P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
3.   Narayan Singh S/O Late Bachchi Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani
     Tola, P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
4.    Kanhaiya Singh S/O Narayan Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani Tola,
      P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
                                                          ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant       :        Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
     For the Respondent-State:        Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

      Date : 16-02-2026
                 Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2025: -

                 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

     has been filed for condonation of delay of 36 days occurred in

     preferring this appeal.

                 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when

     the appellant saw the respondents No. 2 to 4 moving free in the

     village, on enquiry she came to know that they have been

     acquitted. Thereafter she went to the learned court below and after

     enquiry she filed chirkut through her local counsel on 07.07.2013
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
                                            2/9




       and could procure the certified copy of the judgment 14.07.2023.

       Therefore, the delay has occurred in preferring this appeal, which

       were incidental and not because of any lapse on the part of the

       appellant.

                    3. Considering the averments made in this application

       and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the delay

       of 36 days occurred in filing the appeal is condoned.

                    4. This application is allowed.

                    Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 630 of 2025: -

                    5. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up

       for final hearing though it was listed under the heading 'For

       Orders (On Petition)'.

                    6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

       Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the

       trial court records.

                    7.     The present appeal has been preferred by the

       appellant under proviso to Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik

       Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside the judgment of

       acquittal dated 05.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the

       'impugned judgment') passed by learned Additional Sessions

       Judge Vth court, Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned

       trial court'), in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019, arising out of

       Parbatta P.S. Case No. 215 of 2017. By the impugned judgment
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
                                            3/9




       under appeal, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the

       accused persons-the respondents no. 2 to 4, holding them not

       guilty of the charges punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307,

       448, 504, 590/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

                    8. On perusal of the trial court records, it appears that

       the prosecution case is based on a written report of the informant

       Usha Kumari, who alleged that on 20.06.2017 at about 04:00 PM,

       the accused persons, who are her neighbours, abused her and when

       she restrained them, they assaulted her with butt of firearm due to

       which she sustained head injury. Thereafter, when her brother

       Dhiraj Kumar came to her rescue, then the accused persons also

       assaulted him with the butt of the firearm.

                    9. Based on the said written report, Parbatta P.S. Case

       No. 215 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 was registered against the

       accused persons.

                    10. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet

       was filed on 31.12.2017 against the accused persons for the

       offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 448, 307, 509/34 IPC.

                    11. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was

       taken vide order dated 04.07.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 504,

       448, 307, 509/34 IPC against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4.

       It further appears that finding that the offences alleged against the

       accused persons were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
                                            4/9




       the records were committed to the court of Sessions where it was

       registered as Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 vide order dated

       18.07.2019.

                    12

. Charges were read over and explained to the accused

persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried and accordingly vide order dated 13.09.2019 charges were

framed under Sections 341, 323, 504, 448, 307, 509/34 IPC.

13. In course of trial out of seven charge-sheet

witnesses, only two witnesses, namely, Dr. Shweta Kumari (PW 1)

and Ramapati Singh (PW 2) could be examined. On behalf of the

prosecution only the injury report has been brought on record by

way of an exhibit and the same has been proved by PW 1.

14. The learned trial court has recorded in the impugned

judgment that the prosecution has not been able to produce the rest

of the prosecution witnesses including the informant and other

independent witnesses as also the IO of the case. As regards the

evidence of PW 2, the learned trial court has found that he is

admittedly an interested witness. The trial court has found that

both the parties are agnates. Due to lack of evidence on the record,

the trial court took a view that the prosecution has miserably failed

to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons.

15. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant

has made two fold submissions. It is submitted that Dr. Shweta Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026

Kumari (PW 1) has stated that she was posted at Alexia Hospital,

Begusarai, on 28.07.2017 and on that day, she had examined the

patient named Dhiraj Kumar, who was brought by his relations to

her on 21.06.2017 at 04:30 PM with history of physical assault.

16. PW 1 has given the sight of the injuries as under: -

"Sight of injury-head 6.5cm anterio posterior cut over the it. parietal region linear cut. No evidence of laceration, end was not tapered. C.T. head suggest non displaced fracture of parietal bone. Multiple focal and patchy hypodense area involving cortex and sub-cortical edema suggestive of hemorrhagic contusions epidural hemorrhage in lt. fronto parietal bone, subdural haematoma along the tentorium and in the it temporal region.

Age of injury was less than 6 hours.

There was scalp haematoma surrounding this linear cut.

Nature of injury grievous."

17. The next submission of learned counsel for the

appellant is that PW 2. who is the uncle of the informant, has

supported the prosecution case, but the learned trial court has not

relied upon his evidence by giving a finding that he is an interested

witness. It is submitted that the evidence of an interested witness is

not to be discarded outrightly.

18. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State has pointed out from the evidence of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026

Doctor (PW 1) that in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, PW 1

has stated that the injured was brought to her by his relations,

police had not brought him and at the time of his medical

treatment there was no police with the injured. The Doctor has

further stated that she had herself informed the police whereafter

Begusarai Police had come. In paragraph 5, she has stated that her

hospital is a private hospital and the CT-Scan report was not

annexed with her injury report.

19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further

pointed out that so far as the evidence of PW 2 is concerned, he

has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of

occurrence he was inside his house and he was taking his

breakfast. The said witness is uncle of the informant. In paragraph

7 of his deposition, he has given all the description of the various

cases in which Usha Devi is a party. This witness though has not

given the number of cases against him, but he has admitted that in

connection with the cases lodged against him, he had gone to jail.

20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that

the learned trial court has recorded in its order that despite

execution of bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, the

informant and other independent witnesses have not been brought.

This assertion of the trial court is not being contested by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026

21. Having regard to the entire submissions recorded

hereinabove and the evidences which we have taken into

consideration, it is found that in this case neither the informant nor

Dhiraj Kumar, who is said to be the injured witness, has been

examined. The Doctor (PW 1) has categorically stated that Dhiraj

Kumar was brought in her private hospital and he was brought by

the relation not by the police and it was she who had informed the

Begusarai Police and, on such information, Begusarai Police had

arrived. It is, therefore, evident that after the occurrence, no step

was taken by the informant's side to inform the police station with

regard to the occurrence. Non-appearance of the informant and

the injured witness as well as the other independent witnesses

would definitely prove fatal to the prosecution case. The

prosecution has not even exhibited the FIR of this case and there is

no otherwise contest with regard to the finding of the learned trial

court. The trial Court has categorically recorded that despite

service of bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the

prosecution witnesses have not been produced.

22. This is an appeal against acquittal and we are aware

of the principles governing an appeal against acquittal. The broad

principles on which an appeal against acquittal is to be considered

may be found in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026

reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Babu Sahebagouda

Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024)

8 SCC 149. Paragraph '8' of the judgment in the case of H.D.

Sundara (supra) is being reproduced hereunder for a ready

reference:-

"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment1 rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarized as follows:

8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-

appreciating 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 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026

was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."

23. Keeping in view the above proposition and the

evidences available on record, we find no reason to take irresistible

view against the accused persons. No interference is required with

the impugned Judgment.

24. The appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly,

dismissed.

25. Let the trial court's record together with a copy of

this judgment be sent down to the learned trial court.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Praveen Kumar, J)

Pawan/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          17.02.2026.
Transmission Date       17.02.2026.