Archana vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 556 Patna

Patna High Court

Archana vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 20 February, 2026

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.245 of 2019
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2014 Thana- CHACKMEHSI District- Samastipur
     ======================================================
     Archana, wife of Gauri Shankar, D/o Sri Jitendra Kumar Resident of Prem
     Nagar, Bibiganj, Ward No. 7, P.S.- Brahampura, District- Muzaffarpur

                                                                       ... ... Appellant
                                          Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Gauri Shankar Son of Harikant Thakur R/o village- Gaurai, P.S.- Chak
     Mehasi, District- Samastipur
3.   Harikant Thakur Son of Hridya Thakur R/o village- Gaurai, P.S.- Chak
     Mehasi, District- Samastipur
4.   Baban Thakur Wife of Harikant Thakur R/o village- Gaurai, P.S.- Chak
     Mehasi, District- Samastipur

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant        :      Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Yogendra Pd. Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Ratneshwar Kumar, Advocate
     For the State           :       Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
     For Respondent No. 2 to 4 :     Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                             and
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 20-02-2026 This is an appeal against acquittal passed in Sessions

Trial No. 539 of 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist

Court at Samastipur on 21st August 2015.

2. Chackmehsi P.S. Case No. 23/2014 was registered on

25th March 2014 under Section 323/498A/34 of the IPC and

subsequently, added Section 307 of the IPC. On the basis of a

written complaint submitted by one Smt. Archana, wife of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

respondent no. 2 and daughter-in-law of respondent no. 3 and 4. It

is stated in the complaint submitted before the SHO, Chackmehsi

police station in the District of Samastipur that the marriage of the

informant was solemenized according to Hindu rites and customs

in the year 2009. After marriage, she came to her matrimonial

home where her relation with her husband was very cordial for

initial six months. Thereafter, her husband and parents-in-law

started demanding a Honda City Car as further dowry after

marriage and on such demand she was subjected to physical and

mental cruelty. Over the said incident, she lodged a complaint case

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In the

said case, the husband of the informant filed an application before

this Court praying for bail. The said application was allowed on

the submission made on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that he

would take his wife to his place of work and keep her with proper

dignity and honour. Subsequently, on 18th March 2014, the

informant was taken to Mumbai. He stayed their along with her,

her parents-in-law also came to Mumbai but she was not kept in

the house of her husband at Mumbai with proper dignity. On the

contrary, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. On 25 th

March 2014, respondents brought her to Muzaffarpur and insisted

upon her to withdraw the aforementioned complaint case instituted

by her against them. When she told that she would be able to take

appropriate step in this regard after talking to her father, her father- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

in-law declared to end her life. At this, her husband and mother-in-

law assaulted her with the help of an iron rod with the intention to

commit her murder. She sustained grievous injury on her arm and

other parts of the body. In the meantime, some people of

Muzaffarpur and her neighbours appeared at the spot and by their

intervention she was rescued. On the basis, the said complaint, the

above-mentioned police case was registered.

3. Investigation of the case was taken up by S.I.

Birendra Kumar Paswan. The trial court records further reveals

that on conclusion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-

sheet against accused persons under Section 438/34/323/307 of the

IPC. Since, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was handed over to the

learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur but in turn transferred the case

to the 1st Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur

for trial and disposal.

4. The trial court records further reveals that the trial

court framed charge against all the three accused persons,

respondents herein, under Section 498A/34, 323/34, 325/34 and

307/34 of the IPC.

5. That on being heard the charge against the accused

persons, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Accused,

PW-3 is the informant, PW-1, Rajeshwar Singh is a neighbour of

the paternal home of the informant. PW-2 is the father of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

informant, PW-4 is the medical officer who medically treated the

informant on 25th March 2024, PW-5, S.I. Birendra Kumar Paswan

is the I.O. of the case, PW-6 Chandra Deo Rai was a sub-Inspector

of police, who collected the injury report of the informant from the

local hospital as per the requisition. PW-7 is an advocate of

Muzaffarpur, Civil Court.

6. After examination of the witnesses on behalf of the

prosecution, the respondents were examined by the learned trial

Judge under Section 313 of the CrPC. Subsequently, the

respondents examined one Randhir Kumar Thakur as a defense

witness. The learned trial Judge on careful consideration and

independent examination of the witnesses on behalf of the

prosecution and defense and the documentary evidence held that

the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the

respondents beyond any shadow of doubt and accordingly accused

persons were acquitted of the charges.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal, the informant has preferred the

instant appeal.

8. Having heard the learned senior counsel on behalf of

the appellant and the learned Advocate on behalf of the

respondents no. 2 to 4 and learned counsel for the State and on

careful perusal of entire materials on record, we think it proper to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

state that in spite of service of notice, the respondents did not

appear to contest the appeal.

9. It is needless to say that this is a case predominantly

of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC. The

offence under Section 307/325/323 of the IPC of which the

accused persons were charged are the consequential criminal

acts/omissions allegedly committed by the respondents to

perpetuate the offence of cruelty, therefore, it would be prudential

on our part to commence our discussion on the scope of Section

498A of the IPC. Section 498A of the IPC runs thus:-

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

10. A plain reading of Section 498A depicts that all

kinds of cruel treatments do not come within the forforth of 498A

of the IPC. As per explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC

cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive a women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury

or danger to life, limb or health. As per Clause B of the

explanation it is harassment of women with a view to cautioned

her by any person relating to her to meet any unlawful demand. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

11. In the instant case, the informant came with a case of

unlawful demand of a Honda City Car by the respondents which

her father could not satisfy and in order to coerce her, she was

subjected to torture physically at Mumbai and subsequently in the

Court premises of Muzaffarpur.

12. The penultimate paragraph of written complaint is

very important and quoted below:-

"esjk nkok gS fd esjs ifr] lkl] llqj ngst ds fy, iwoZ ls izrkfM+r djrs vk jgs gSa rFkk tku ekjus ds fu;r ls vkt ;g t?kU; vijk/k fd;s gSaA esjs firkth ? kVuk ds laca/k esa lwpuk nsus Fkkuk pys x;s blh chp esjs llqj LFkkuh; fpfdRld dks cqykdj esjk bZykt ?kj esa gh djok;s mlds ckn esjs firkth pd esglh Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dks ysdj xksjkbZ vk;s vkSj iqfyl inkf/kdkjh eq>s ?kk;y voLFkk esa Fkkuk yk;s vc eSa vius firk ds lkFk eSds tk jgh gwaA"

13. The above statement clearly depicts an allegation of

infliction of torture on demand of dowry. The learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant, in course of his submission, also admits

that the FIR was lodged for causing physical torture on demand of

dowry. However, PW-3, in her evidence, did not state even a single

word with regard to the alleged demand of dowry by the

respondents. Her evidence on the other hand, is that the

respondents were putting pressure to withdraw complaint Case No.

3134 of 2011 which was instituted by her before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In view of such material

contradiction between the FIR and the evidence of the informant, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

who is the author of the case, we are not in a position to hold that

the trial court had committed error in recording the order of

acquittal.

14. In Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Ors. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed as hereunder:-

"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala [Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

(1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320] has held : (SCC p. 415, para 7)

"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an

appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The

powers of the appellate court in an appeal

against acquittal are no less than in an appeal

against conviction. But where on the basis of

evidence on record two views are reasonably

possible the appellate court cannot substitute its

view in the place of that of the trial court. It is

only when the approach of the trial court in

acquitting an accused is found to be clearly

erroneous in its consideration of evidence on

record and in deducing conclusions therefrom

that the appellate court can interfere with the

order of acquittal."

15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in

(2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the

following general principles with regard to the powers of the

Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of

acquittal in paragraph no. 42, which is reproduced as under:-

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

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 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

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. Thus, it is the first and foremost duty of the

Appellate Court to consider 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 unless he is

proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused

having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his

innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the

trial court. There is also a consistent view that when two views are

possible, the court must accept the view which favours the

accused. The said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023)

9 SCC 581 and Mallappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka

reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

17. Bearing the legal principle in mind as enshrined by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the judgment of the trial court is taken

into consideration, we are not in a position to hold in the line of

submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

that the impugned judgment was passed on assessment of wrong

principle of law without evaluating the evidence on record. The

trial court evaluated each and every evidence on record and

recorded the order of acquittal.

18. We have also examined independently the evidence

of the informant and other witnesses. From the evidence of PW-1,

PW-2, PW-7 and others, it is ascertained that none of them are eye-

witnesses of any incident of perpetuation of physical and mental

torture to the informant. Their evidence is absolutely hearsay in

nature and the Court cannot rely on such evidence which was

allegedly heard by PW-1, PW-2, from PW-3. PW-3, in her

evidence, did not say that she narrated the evidence but PW-1 and

PW-2, so the Court cannot consider their evidence.

19. PW-4 is a medical practitioner, who was posted at

Sub-Divisional Hospital at Pusa on 25th March 2014, who

medically examined PW-3 on 26th March, 2014 at about 01:30 am

and found the following injuries:-

"fnukad 25@3@2014 ls eSa lc fMfotuy gkLihVy iwlk esa gh

inkLFkkfir gwaA fnukad 25@3@2014 dks eq>s pdesaglh iqfyl dk fjDohth"ku

izkIr gqvk rFkk 26@3@2014 dks lqcg 1-30 cts (1.30A.M.) dks eSaus vpZuk mez Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

28 o'kZ efgyk w/o xkSjh"kadj D/o ftrsUnz dqekj fu0 xzke xksjkbZ Fkkuk pdesaglh

ftyk leLrhiqj ¼fcgkj½ dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k fd;kA eSaus muds "kjhj ij fuEu

pksVsa ik;h &&

"(i) Abrasion over scalp redish brown in colour.

(ii) Injury over neck but no external injury, no bony tenderness seen.

(iii) Injury over right arm. Fracture of right humerous bone suspected.

(iv) Injury over back but no external injury seen."

20. It appears from the evidence of PW-4 as well as the

injury report that the informant was allegedly assaulted by the

respondent on 25th March, 2014 at about 03:00 pm. There is no

explanation as to why she was medically examined on 26 th March,

2014 at about 01:30 am. A reasonable suspicion arises in this

regard as to whether the informant was assaulted by some person

other than the respondents in between the time after 03:00 pm and

01:30 am. Moreover, in the injury, the injured did not state the

history of assault. It is not recorded in the injury report that she

was assaulted by the accused persons/respondents. Only one

witness, namely, PW-7, Sanjay Kumar Sinha, was examined as an

independent witness of the incident of physical assault allegedly

perpetuated by the respondents to the petitioner (wife) but the said

witness is indeed a chance witness being an Advocate of

Muzaffarpur Civil Court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.245 of 2019 dt.20-02-2026

21. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any

merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed on

contest.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

(Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Suraj Dubey/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.02.2026
Transmission Date       24.02.2026