[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar Through The District ... vs Sangeeta Kumari on 16 February, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOVT. APPEAL (SJ) No.1 of 2025
In
GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.2 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2018 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai
======================================================
The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Begusarai Bihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Kumari W/O Sanjev Raman R/O Vill.- Mathurapur South
Tola, P.S.- Teghra, Dist.- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Addl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and
learned APP appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal filed on behalf of the
appellant under Section 378 1(b) iii of Code of Criminal
Procedure or Section 419(b)(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, which
has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated
14.06.2024
rendered by learned Exclusive Special Excise
Judge, Begusarai in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No.
356 of 2018 whereby the present respondent/accused has
been acquitted from the charges levelled against her.
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3. The case of the prosecution is that on secret
information the informant and other police personnels
reached at the house of one Sanjeev Kumar Singh and when
police vehicle stopped, three persons started fleeing away.
The police party entered into the house and found a truck
bearing Registration No. RJ20GA-9837 is standing and the
driver and cleaner of the vehicle were indulged to unload the
cartoons of foreign liquor from the truck. The informant
caught two accused persons namely, Mangal Chand and
Birma Ram on the spot. On search of the aforesaid truck, 43
cartoons of 180 ml. and seven dibba of old freeze having with
foreign liquor from the possession of the driver and khalasi
were recovered. Upon questioning, the apprehended persons
disclosed that at behest of Sanjeev Raman, they were
unloading the foreign liquor from the said Truck and when
police came, Sanjeev Raman, and his associates fled away.
The informant recovered 154 cartoon of 750 ml each cartoon
having with 12 bottles, 290 cartoon of 375 ml each with 24
bottles, 194 cartoons of 180 ml each 48 bottles, 70 pieces of
180 ml, 35 pieces of 180 ml, 28 pieces of 180 ml total 5896.
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
100 litres foreign liquor were seized from house of Sanjeev
Raman and, accordingly, seizure list was prepared.
4. On the basis of written report of the informant
(PW-6), the instant case was lodged against the accused for
the offence u/s-30(a)(b) of the Excise Act and accordingly
cognizance was taken by Special Court (Excise).
5. To substantiate the case, the prosecution
produced eight (8) witnesses in this case and they are (1)
P.W.1 Ramagayan Prasad; (2) P.W 2 Bhual Prasad; (3) P.W 3
Rajesh Kumar; (4) P.W 4 Rinku Devi; (5) P.W 5 Bhola Sahni;
(6) P.W.6 the informant namely, Budhdeo Paswan; (7) P.W 7
Ram Kumar Singh and (8) PW 8 Raj Bindu Prasad.
6. The prosecution has also produced the following
documentary evidence, which are as under:
Exhibit -1 Signature of P. W 1 on seizure list.
Exhibit - 2 Signature of P. W 1 on memo of arrest.
Exhibit - 1/1 Identification of signature of witness
no. 3 on seizure list.
Exhibit - 2/2 -Identification of signature of
witness no. 4 on memo of arrest.
Exhibit - 3- Identification of signature of witness
no. 5 on his self statement
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
Exhibit -1/2- Identification of signature on seizure
list.
Exhibit -2/2 - Identification of signature on memo
of arrest.
Exhibit - 1/3- Identification of signature of
witness no. 5 on seizure list
Exhibit - 1/4- Identification of signature of
witness no. 6 on seizure list.
Exhibit -4- Received FSL report by the Court.
7. On the basis of testimony of aforesaid
prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused/respondent
was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where she
completely denied the evidences surfaced against her and
claimed complete innocence and false implication. After the
conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the
respondent/accused namely, Sangeeta Kumari through
impugned judgment from the charges levelled against her.
Being aggrieved with aforesaid order of acquittal,
appellant/State preferred the present government appeal.
8. Hence, the present appeal.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant/State that judgment of learned trial
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
court is not convincing in terms of law for the reason that the
presence of accused/respondent inside the room, where the
huge consignment of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was
recovered, was totally ignored.
10. It is submitted that even the seizure list
witnesses testified before the learned trial court to identify
their signatures and, moreover, the informant (PW-6) and
Investigating Officer (PW-8) of this case supported the
recovery of liquor.
11. Learned counsel, while arguing for the
accused/respondent, submitted that seizure list witnesses i.e.
PW-5 & PW-6 completely denied during the trial that any
recovery of illicit liquor was made before them. It is submitted
that in view of testimony of these two witnesses only, nothing
survives in this matter and, therefore, the appeal was
preferred without any convincing grounds.
12. It is submitted that nothing transpired during
trial that accused/respondent was involved in any conspiracy
or she was even found connected with consignment of illicit
liquor, rather she was present inside the room where illicit
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
liquor was alleged to be stored being wife of co-accused
namely, Sanjeev Raman.
13. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned
counsel that even the seized liquor was sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL), Patna, after ten days of the
occurrence. It is further submitted that other prosecution
witnesses like PW-1 & PW-2 also testified during the trial that
they did not even marked the seized bottles or cartoons or put
any signature thereon.
14. In view of aforesaid finding of learned trial court
qua acquittal cannot be said a perverse finding, and,
therefore, same not required to be interfered with.
15. In support of his submission, learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
available through Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], where the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in paragraph '42' which reads as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of 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
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
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 emphasize 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 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."
16. I have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record and also
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
17. Upon perusal of records, it transpires from the
deposition of PW-1 namely, Manoj Prasad, who was the
member of raiding team, that he supported the case of the
prosecution as far recovery of liquor is concerned, but upon
cross-examination, he deposed that no cartoon was found by
him. He was not even aware about the sample of bottles and
even seized materials were not produced before the court
during the trial.
18. Similarly, PW-2 namely Bhual Prasad, who
was also one of the member of raiding team and supported
the case of the prosecution as far recovery of illicit liquor is
concerned, but, upon cross-examination, he testified during
trial that not even a single bottle of liquor out of recovered
liquor was brought before him in the court during the trial. He
also deposed that the liquor was not sealed and it was also not
marked.
19. PW-3 is Rajesh Kumar. He appears to
support the recovery and also identified his signature over
seizure list. He identified his signature before the learned trial
court as Exhibit -1/1. Upon cross-examination, it was
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
deposed by him that as the other family members of Sanjeev
Raman was living in different parts of the building, therefore,
they were arrested. He also deposed that seized materials
were sealed before him.
20. PW-4 is Rinku Kumari. She has also
supported the recovery of illicit liquor and identified her
signature on arrest memo which on her identification
exhibited as Exhibit - 2/1 before the learned trial court. She
was the member of raiding team, but could not explain the
brand and name of the company of the liquor. She upon her
cross-examination, also testified that she is not in a position
to disclose the exact quantity of recovered illicit liquor for the
reason that recovery was made in the night.
21. PW-5 and PW-7 are Bhola Sahani and
Ram Kumar Singh. Both are seizure list witnesses and
identified their signature as Exhibit - 1/3 and 1/4
respectively. PW-5 failed to identify the accused/respondent
during the trial whereas PW-7 identified the accused but failed
to disclose her name. Upon cross-examination, both witnesses
categorically deposed before the court that neither any paper
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
in connection with seizure was prepared before them nor any
recovery was made, rather it was deposed by PW-5 that while
he was crossing the police station on 20.09.2018, his
signature was obtained by Police Inspector on paper. He has
no idea about the house of accused/respondent. Similarly,
PW-7 said that he was called by Police Inspector to police
station and thereafter his signature was obtained on paper.
22. PW-6 is Budhdeo Paswan. He is the
informant of this case and supported the recovery of
5696.100 litres of illicit liquor, where accused/respondent
was present as housewife. During cross-examination, he
categorically stated that accused/respondent neither present
on the truck nor near to it. It is deposed that
accused/respondent was arrested only for the reason that she
was the wife of main co-accused Sanjeev Raman, who was
not present at the time of raid in his house. He also deposed
that he has no knowledge regarding the articles loaded on the
truck.
23. PW-8 is Raj Bindu Prasad, who is
Investigating Officer of this case. He has also supported the
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
recovery of illicit liquor from the room of the
accused/respondent and also from the truck, which was
parked in front of her house supported total recovery of 595
cartoons of liquor. Upon cross-examination, it was deposed by
him that recovered articles were sent for forensic examination
after ten days of the recovery.
24. In view of aforesaid evidence as available on the
record, it can be said safely that prosecution miserably failed
to establish recovery of alleged illicit liquor from conscious
physical possession of this accused/respondent. It also
appears that accused/respondent was implicated only for the
reason that she was the wife of main co-accused Sanjeev
Raman. Appreciating all such evidences, as discussed above,
learned trial court acquitted the accused/respondents.
25. In view of same, it cannot be said that finding of
acquittal as recorded by the learned trial court not appears
perverse on its face and, therefore, by taking a guiding note
of the legal report of Hon'ble Apex Court as available through
Chandrappa's case (supra), this Court does not find any
occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment of
Patna High Court G.APP.(SJ) No.1 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
acquittal, which is under challenge.
26. In view of aforesaid, the present appeal is
devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
27. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith TCR be
sent to learned trial court, immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date 18.02.2026
