Patna High Court
Sajarun NishaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, finding no merit in the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, mother of the deceased, appealed the acquittal of Md. Guddu (R‑2) for the murder of her son under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court had found that the prosecution failed to prove Guddu's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the presumption of innocence and the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case rested on the informant’s statement, witnesses who were either hostile or hearsay, and alleged injuries to the accused, but no forensic evidence from seized weapons was produced. The High Court examined the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence, the investigative lapses of the investigating officer, and the legal standards set by precedents such as Hanumant and Sharad Sarda. Concluding that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was not perverse and that the prosecution did not meet the required standard of proof, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented formed a complete and conclusive chain to support conviction.
- Impact of investigative lapses, including failure to submit seized weapons for forensic analysis, on the prosecution case.
- Applicability of legal principles governing circumstantial evidence (Hanumant, Sharad Sarda) in this case.
- Whether the trial court's acquittal judgment is perverse or liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- acquittal
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- investigative lapse
- burden of proof
- criminal appeal
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- CrPC 313
- CrPC 372
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1128 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2011 Thana- BISHANPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sajarun Nisha W/o Late Shalim R/o Mohalla - Bhingo, P.S. - Lahariasarai,
Distt. - Darbhanga
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Guddu S/o Md. Mustaque R/o Chakrahmat Bhingo, P.S. - Lahariasarai,
Distt. - Darbhanga
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baidyanath Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 02-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by mother of the
deceased taking recourse of the provisions 372 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’).
3. By filing the present appeal, the appellant is
seeking setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.06.2024
(hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Darbhanga (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in S.Tr. No. 305 of 2011
(R. No. 572 of 2014), arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No.01
of 2011, dated 04.01.2011.
4. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
2/15
Court has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove
the guilt of the accused (R-2), beyond all shadow of reasonable
doubts. The learned Trial Court has relied upon one of the
fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.
Prosecution Case
5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan
of Abdul Salam (PW-10), who is the brother of the deceased. In
his fardbeyan made before the Sub-Inspector of Police of
Bisanpur Police Station on 04.01.2011 at about 08:00 hours near
Chhotki Dilahi Bridge, the informant alleged that his brother
Md. Rizwan (deceased), who was having a Bolero vehicle
bearing registration no. BR-7P-1859 through which he earned
his livelihood, on 03.01.2011 at 10:00 a.m. went with the Child
Development Programme Officer to her office at Keoti with his
vehicle but did not return till 08:00 p.m. He was being contacted
on his mobile phone, although the phone was ringing but none
picked up the phone. On the next day in the morning, the
informant went to the residence of the CDPO at Laxmisagar,
who told him that yesterday his brother dropped her at 6:30 p.m.
Thereafter, the informant again contacted his brother on his
mobile phone which was picked this time by Bada Babu of
Laheriasarai Police Station, Darbhanga, who told him that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
3/15
Vehicle No. BR-7P-1859 was standing near the police station
having blood-stains inside and outside of the vehicle. The
informant along with his brother-in-law Md. Kalamuddin went
to Laheriasarai Police Station and identified the vehicle and
there he came to know that one dead body was lying at the bank
of river near a bridge of Chhotki Dilhai, P.S.- Bishanpur, then
they went there and identified the dead body of Md. Rizwan and
injuries were seen over his head, throat and face. He further
disclosed that there was a land dispute between their family
member and one Saif Ansari, who once threatened them by
calling outsiders who in-turn abused and threatened them. The
informant further alleged that accused Guudu and his brother-in-
law Asharf were seen with the deceased Rizwan prior to
occurrence on the last night and thereafter Rizwan was missing.
He further alleged that some persons had also seen blood on the
clothes of accused Md. Guddu along with other persons. In the
end, the informant claimed that his brother was killed by
accused Guudu along with other persons and after murdering his
brother his dead body was found near the river.
6. After completion of investigation, the police
submitted charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No.19/2011,
against the sole accused, Md. Guddu (hereinafter referred to as
‘R-2’) under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
4/15
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Based on the charge-sheet
filed against R-2, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC vide order dated
08.04.2011. Finding that the offences alleged is triable by a
Court of Sessions, the records were committed to the Court of
Sessions and the charges were explained to the accused person
in Hindi, which he denied and claimed to be tried. The learned
Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC
vide order dated 27.03.2012.
7. On behalf of prosecution, altogether 11
witnesses have been examined and some documents were
marked exhibits. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, recently rendered, in the case of Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs. State of Gujarat reported in
2025 INSC 1433, we provide the list of prosecution witnesses
and the exhibited documents hereunder for ready reference in a
tabular form:
List of Prosecution Witnesses
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
1 Pankaj Kumar Rai Other witness
2 Naseema Khatoon Interested witness
(sister of the deceased)
3 Nasreen Khatoon Interested witness
(sister of the deceased)
4 Md. Nisar Other witness
5 Rubina Khatoon Other witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
5/15
6 Muzibur Rahman Other witness
7 Faiyaz Ahmed Other witness
8 Dr. P.K. Das Medical Officer
9 Abdul Kalam Interested witness
(brother of the deceased)
10 Abdul Salam Informant
11 Shashank Bhushan Saran Investigating Officer
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/Attested
No. Exhibit by
P-1 Xerox copy of PW-8
postmortem report
of deceased
P-2 Signature of the PW-10
informant on the
Fardbeyan
P-3 Signature of
witness A. Subhan
on fardbeyan
P-4 Formal F.I.R PW-11
P-4/1 Signature of I.O on PW-11
fardbeyan
P-5 Charge-sheet PW-11
8. Thereafter, the statement of accused (R-2) was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he pleaded
innocence.
9. The defence has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence. The general plea of the defence is that he
had been falsely implicated in this case.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
10. The learned Trial Court examined the evidences
adduced by the prosecution, briefly discussed the deposition of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
6/15
the prosecution witnesses and the documents which were marked
exhibits. The Additional Public Prosecutor of the State assisted
by learned private counsel for the informant submit that the
matter relates to a young person who was earning his livelihood
through driving, he had been murdered brutally by the accused. It
was pleaded by the prosecution that the accused (R-2) was seen
with the injuries and blood-stains by the villagers and upon
asking about the injuries on his body, he kept on changing his
stand, therefore, the accused (R-2) was suspected to be involved
in the killing of the brother of the informant. It was also
submitted that in view of the corroborative evidences on the
record, the chain of circumstantial evidence could stand
established, hence the accused (R-2), deserves conviction and
sentence.
11. The defence took a plea that the prosecution
case was false, frivolous and baseless. The accusation against the
accused (R-2) was false. None of the articles seized by the police
had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter
referred to as ‘FSL’) for examination and nothing was recovered
from the possession of the accused so as to connect him with the
crime in question. It is the case of defence that even as the
prosecution has proved the death of the deceased but it has
miserably failed to connect the accused (R-2) with the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
7/15
crime. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence and the
prosecution had failed to connect the accused to the alleged
murder. In sum and substance, the stand of the accused (R-2) is
that the prosecution must stand on its own leg and in the case of
circumstantial evidence unless the chain of chronological events
is established, conviction cannot be placed. Reliance has been
placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sharad Birchand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra, reported
in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 2
SCC 793.
12. As stated above, having examined the
prosecution evidences available on the record, the learned Trial
Court was not convinced with the prosecution. In ultimate
analysis, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had
miserably failed to establish the charges, hence, the accused (R-
2) has been acquitted.
Submission on behalf of appellant
13. In this Court, learned counsel for the appellant
has once again taken this Court through the evidences of the
prosecution witnesses. The emphasis of the learned counsel for
the appellant is on the circumstance immediately present after the
occurrence which has been stated by the witnesses saying that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
8/15
this appellant was seen in an injured condition and regarding the
injuries, he kept on changing his stand. Learned counsel submits
that the accused (R-2) had received treatment from one Pankaj
Kumar Rai (PW-1) who has deposed that between 10:00-10:30
p.m. in the night, Md. Guudu (R-2) was brought to him by his
Nani in injured condition, there was a fracture in his hand and
there were a cut injuries and he had put bandage on that. In his
cross-examination, he has stated that he was not a doctor but at
the local level he was doing the medicine practice.
14. It is submitted that in this case the Investigating
Officer (PW-11) has also stated that he had arrested Md. Guddu
and at the time of his arrest he had found Md. Guddu (R-2) in
injured condition.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the I.O. of
this case had not conducted the investigation properly, he
claimed that he had visited the place of occurrence, there were
blood-stained soil but he had not taken the sample of the blood-
stained soil. The I.O. (PW-11) had seized a dabiya from near the
dead body of Rizwan and had also found one sword at some
distance from the dabiya, both of them having blood marks, but
he had not sent those weapons of crime to the FSL and those
were not produced before the learned Trial Court. It is thus
submitted that the I.O. of this case did not perform his duties well
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
9/15
but for the lapses on the part of the I.O., the prosecution case
would not suffer.
16. It is submitted that in this case even as there is
no eye-witness of the occurrence, the evidence of informant
(PW-10) goes on to prove that there was some land dispute
between the family of the informant and one Md. Samad Ansari
on account of dispute over a drainage. This was protested by the
deceased- brother of the informant. He has stated that Guddu (R-
2) was in the company of Ashraf Saif and Sadik Ansari, who is
the son of Md. Samad Ansari and in course of quarrel Ashraf Saif
and Sadik Ansari were saying to brutally cut the body of his
deceased brother. After few days, the occurrence had taken place.
17. Learned counsel submits that the informant has
though stated that Md. Guddu (R-2) had not quarreled with
Rizwan and his family and he was on visiting term, however, the
involvement of Md. Guddu (R-2) is evident from the fact that he
was unable to explain his injuries.
Submission on behalf of State
18. The appeal has been contested by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It is submitted that the
learned Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation
of the evidences on the record. Referring to the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, the learned APP for the State submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
10/15
in this case all the prosecution witnesses are only hear-say
witnesses. PW-5, has gone on to evidence of saying that he did
not identify the deceased and earlier his statement was not
recorded. He had also been declared hostile as he denied to have
seen Guddu in injured condition. Similarly, PW-6 and PW-7 have
been declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case.
19. Learned Additional Public Prosecution for the
State submits that in fact the informant (PW-10) has himself
damaged the whole prosecution case and this may be found from
his statement present in paragraph no.6 of his deposition wherein
he has clearly stated that Guddu (R-2) was named in the murder
case of Rizwan on suspicion. It is thus submitted that the
suspicion howsoever strong may be, cannot take place of proof.
20. In her submission, the learned APP for the State
submits that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error
in appreciation of the evidences.
Analysis and Consideration
21. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also
perused the records.
22. It is evident that, in the present case, the
informant (PW-10) has himself stated in paragraph-6 of the
deposition that he had given the name of this accused (R-2) on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
11/15
suspicion. The informant has clearly stated that neither the
deceased nor his family had any prior enmity with the appellant
and the appellant was on visiting term with his family. On the
date of occurrence, the accused (R-2) was not seen with the
deceased.
23. This Court further finds that the I.O. of the case
claimed to have seized the dabiya and sword nearby the dead
body but these two weapons were never produced in the Court.
The weapons were never sent to the FSL, therefore, the
prosecution case saying that those weapons were having blood
stains and were recovered near the dead body are not proved. We
have also noticed that this was a major incriminating
circumstance but when the statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the prosecution did not bring
it to the notice of the accused that there was recovery of dabiya
and sword near the dead body of deceased and that those were
having blood-stains. In absence of the production of those
material objects and there being no proof of the fact that there
was any blood on the weapon and the blood were that of the
deceased or the accused, it would not be possible to accept the
prosecution case as framed.
24. The I.O. of the case has definitely not done his
duty diligently. While it is true that for every lapse of the I.O., the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
12/15
prosecution case cannot be allowed to suffer but in a case of the
present nature where the whole prosecution case rests upon
circumstantial evidences, the prosecution is required to establish
the chain of chronological evidence in such a manner that it
should irresistibly results in a conclusion that the appellant is
guilty of commission of the offence. The principles of
Panchsheel as enunciated in the case of Hanumant vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, which has been
discussed by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the relevant Paragraph ‘152’ of the
judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) is
being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by
the High Court we would like to cite a few
decisions on the nature, character and essential
proof required in a criminal case which rests on
circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1. “This
case has been uniformly followed and applied by
this Court in a large number of later decisions up-
to- date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias)
Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh17 and Ramgopal v.
State of Maharashtra18 . It may be useful to extract
what Mahajan,J. has laid down in Hanumant case1
:
“It is well to remember that in cases
where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
13/15
circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so
far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the
accused.”
25. We would also refer a judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dilavar Hussain and Others
versus the State of Gujarat and Another reported in (1991) 1
SCC 253, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
questions as to who, why, when, where and how are required to
be explained by the prosecution while establishing the chain of
criminological evidence. The relevant observation of the
paragraphs no. ‘3’ and ‘4’ are being extracted hereunder:-
“3. All this generated a little emotion
during submissions. But sentiments or
emotions, howsoever strong, are neither
relevant nor have any place in a court of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
14/15
law. Acquittal or conviction depends on
proof or otherwise of the criminological
chain which invariably comprises of why,
where, when, how and who. Each knot of
the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow
of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any
crack or loosening in it weakens the
prosecution. Each link, must be so
consistent that the only conclusion which
must follow is that the accused is guilty.
Although guilty should not escape (sic).
But on reliable evidence, truthful witnesses
and honest and fair investigation. No free
man should be amerced by framing or to
assuage feelings as it is fatal to human
dignity and destructive of social, ethical
and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or
cruelty in its execution however abhorrent
and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the
guilt.
4. Misgiving, also, prevailed about
appreciation of evidence. Without
adverting to submissions suffice it to
mention that credibility of witnesses has to
be measured with same yardstick, whether,
it is ordinary crime or a crime emanating
due to communal frenzy. Law does not
make any distinction either in leading of
evidence or in its assessment. Rule is one
and only one namely, whether depositions
are honest and true. Whether the witnesses,
who claim to have seen the incident in this
case, withstand this test is the issue? But
before that some legal and general
questions touching upon veracity of
prosecution version may be disposed of.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1128 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
15/15
26. On going through the entire materials on the
record, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the
learned Trial Court are based on the appreciation of the evidences
on the record, cannot be found fault with. In an appeal against
acquittal, unless the judgment of learned Trial Court is found to
be perversed, no interference would be required.
27. We, therefore, find no merit in the present
appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/ Anand-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.04.2026
Transmission Date 09.04.2026
Checking your session…