Patna High Court
Motichand Ram @ Motichand ChamarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn.
Summary
The victim, Motichand Ram, filed a criminal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC against the acquittal of several accused in a case involving offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The trial court had convicted four accused under Sections 323, 341 and 325/34 IPC, but acquitted them of Section 504 IPC and the SC/ST Act, and had also acquitted three female accused of all charges. The appellant challenged these acquittals but mistakenly included Section 307 IPC in the appeal memorandum. Counsel for the appellant subsequently sought unconditional withdrawal of the appeal, citing the error. The High Court granted permission to withdraw and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC may be withdrawn unconditionally after filing.
- Whether the inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect charge (Section 307 IPC) affects the appellant's right to withdraw the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 341, 504
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(i)(r), 3(i)(x)
Subjects
- appeal
- withdrawal
- acquittal
- IPC
- SC/ST Act
- Section 372 CrPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1111 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2017 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Motichand Ram @ Motichand Chamar, Son of Late Manadev Chamar,
Resident of Village- Bhapsa, PS- Dhanaha,Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinath Kushwaha Son of Late Sukhi Kushwaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
3. Ramakant Kuswaha Son of Late Sukhi Kuswaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa,
P.S.- Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
4. Chhotelal Kuswaha Son of Sukhrij Kuswaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
5. Mahendra Kuswaha Son of Sukhraj Kuswaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
6. Nirmala Devi Wife of Dinanath Kushwaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
7. Isravati Devi Wife of Chhote Lal Kushwaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
8. Lilavati Devi Wife of Mahendra Kushwaha R/O- Villlage- Bhapsa, P.S.-
Dhanha, Distt.- Bettiah, West Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms.Preeti Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
6 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the victim
invoking Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1111 of 2024(6) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court
has held that the charges under Sections 323, 341 and 325/34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) have been proved beyond
all shadow of reasonable doubts against the accused Dinanath
Kushwaha, Ramakant Kushwaha, Mahendra Kushwaha and
Chotelal Kushwaha. The prosecution, however, could not prove
the charges under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(i)(r) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) against them. The learned trial court
has further held that none of the charges have been proved
against the accused Nirmala Devi, Ishrawati Devi and Lilawati
Devi, therefore, they have been acquitted of the charges giving
them benefit of doubt.
4. The appellant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of acquittal of accused Nirmala Devi, Ishrawati Devi
and Lilawati Devi of all the charges. He is also aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused Dinanath
Kushwaha, Ramakant Kushwaha, Chotelal Kushwaha and
Mahendra Kushwaha of the charges under Section 504 IPC and
Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
inadvertently in the memo of appeal as well as in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1111 of 2024(6) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, it is
stated that the learned court below acquitted the respondent
nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the charges under Sections 341, 323,
307 and 504/34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act. It is
submitted that Section 307 IPC seems to have been wrongly
inserted in the memo of appeal as well as in the supplementary
affidavit, therefore, the same be ignored.
6. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal
unconditionally.
7. Permission is granted.
8. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
9. Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State is present.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-
U
Checking your session…