Patna High Court
Ranjit Sah @ Ranjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondent on the murder charge (Section 302 IPC) and related offences, finding no intention to kill.
Summary
The appellant Ranjit Sah appealed against the acquittal of Suraj Kumar under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 504, 307 and 34 of the IPC, contending that the prosecution had proved murder. The trial court had convicted the accused only under Section 304 Part II, finding no intention to kill because the assault was made with the blunt handle of a sword in a single blow. The High Court examined the eyewitness testimonies, the post‑mortem report and the defence's accident theory, noting that the weapon used was non‑lethal and there was no pre‑meditation. Relying on precedents distinguishing murder from culpable homicide, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea for murder. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal on the murder charge and dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals unless the findings are perverse or illegal.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death was caused by an assault with the intention to kill, warranting conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the evidence supports convictions under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 307 and 34 IPC.
- Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal on the murder charge under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 304 Part II, 307, 323, 325, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- murder
- culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- intention
- IPC Section 302
- IPC Section 304 Part II
- CrPC Section 372
- appeal against acquittal
- evidence assessment
- sword assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1133 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-877 Year-2018 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ranjit Sah @ Ranjeet Kumar S/o Dipak Sah R/o vill - Patahi, P.S. - Sadar,
Distt. - Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suraj Kumar S/o Late Gauri Shankar Sah R/o vill - Patahi Hari, P.s. - Sadar,
Distt. - Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
: Mr. Ritwaj Raman, Advocate
: Ms. Somali Acharya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
Date : 02-04-2026
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant assisted by Ms. Somali Acharya and Mr. Binod Bihari
Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Despite issuance of notice to respondent no.2 vide
order dated 14.05.2025, which was validly served, none has
appeared on his behalf.
3. The present appeal has been preferred under proviso
to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting-aside the judgment
dated 29.06.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’),
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
2/23
passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 st,
Muzaffarpur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ learned Trial Court’) in
Sessions Trial No.589 of 2019 (arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.
877 of 2018) whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has
acquitted respondent no.2 of the charges levelled against him
under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and has been pleased
to convict him under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
4. The challenge to the impugned judgment is, however,
confined to the acquittal of respondent no.2 of the charges under
Section 302 and other provisions of the IPC.
5. The records of this appeal have been placed before
this Court for consideration of the prayer of the appellant for
setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Prosecution case
6. The prosecution case is based on the written report of
the informant, namely Ranjeet Kumar dated 15.11.2018, in which
he alleged that on the same day in the morning between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:30 a.m., Suraj Kumar all of a sudden assaulted his father
Deepak Sah by means of sword on the head with the intention to
kill and soon thereafter with the aid of the persons of
neighbourhood the injured was admitted in Maa Janki Hospital
where his treatment was going on.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
3/23
7. On the basis of the said written application, a formal
First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.I.R.’) was
registered being Sadar P.S. Case No. 877 of 2018. The police after
completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet bearing no.110 of
2019 dated 30.06.2019 against the respondent no.2 under Sections
341, 323, 325, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the IPC, whereafter
cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under the
afore-mentioned provisions and the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions. On receipt of records, the case was numbered
as Sessions Trial No.589/2019 and the learned Trial Court framed
charges against the respondent no.2 on 21.12.2019 under Sections
341, 323, 325, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the IPC, which were
explained to him and to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case
during trial, has examined as many as eight witnesses and adduced
documentary evidence too.
9. The statement of the respondent no.2 was recorded
firstly on 27.07.2023 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he
denied the allegations on the plea that he was not present at the
place of occurrence at all. A more detailed statement was recorded
on 11.12.2023, wherein also he denied the allegations giving
explanations that he was going to his sister’s house and he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
4/23
informed by Kanhai Paswan that his uncle Deep Narayan Sah
(deceased) had suffered injuries on account of an accident. He has
further stated that he was falsely implicated on account of some
domestic disputes.
10. The defence has also examined five witnesses,
however, has not adduced any documentary evidence.
11. The list of prosecution witnesses and documents
exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and the list of defence
witnesses are mentioned hereinbelow in a tabular form:
List of prosecution witnesses
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
PW-1 Randhir Kumar Brother of the informant and eye-witness
PW-2 Kiran Devi Wife of the deceased and eye-witness
PW-3 Sanju Devi Wife of the informant
PW-4 Ranjeet Kumar Informant
PW-5 Vikash Kumar Hostile
PW-6 Sunita Kumari 1st Investigating Officer
PW-7 Dr. Mukesh Prasad Medical Officer
PW-8 Manohar Kumar 2nd Investigating Officer
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
1 Written application of PW-4
informant, Ranjeet Kumar
2 Postmortem report of the PW-7
deceased, Deep Narayan Sah
List of Defence witnesses
Defence Witness Name of witness Description
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
5/23
No.
DW-1 Manoj Paswan Neighbour of informant
DW-2 Kaushal Paswan Co-villager
DW-3 Sangita Kumari Sister of the respondent no.2
DW-4 Kanhai Paswan Neighbour of informant
DW-5 Hema Devi Cousin sister of the respondent
no.2 and the informant
Findings of the learned Trial Court
12. The learned Trial Court after considering and
analyzing the materials available on the record, including the
evidence of witnesses, found that while PW-1 and PW-2 were eye-
witnesses of the incident supporting the case of the prosecution
that the respondent no.2 got a sword and attacked Deep Narayan
Sah on his head with the iron handle/rod part of the sword due to
which he started bleeding and fell down, PW-3 and PW-4
(informant) also supported the occurrence but on a conjoint
reading of their examination-in-chief with their cross-
examination, it appeared that these two witnesses arrived at the
place of occurrence after the deceased was injured. The learned
Trial Court has further noticed that PW-7, the Doctor who
conducted the postmortem of the deceased and proved the
postmortem report corroborated the prosecution case finding head
injury upon the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance and
the death being caused by hemorrhage and shock resulting from
the said injury. It was thus concluded that the prosecution had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
6/23
clearly established that the respondent no.2 had hit Deep Narayan
Sah on his head with iron handle/rod part of a sword and injured
him, causing his death.
13. The learned Trial Court then went on to discuss the
issue as to whether the act of causing death was murder or
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and after discussing
some judicial pronouncements, analyzed the evidence in view of
the judicial observations and found that it was apparent from the
evidence on record that respondent no.2 consciously chose to hit
Deep Narayan Sah, not with the lethal sharp part of the sword but
with the iron handle/rod part of the sword indicating thereby that
his act of assault was not done with the intention of causing death.
It was further observed that it was a case of single blow but the
force of the blow was such as to cause depressed fracture over
right temporal bone and depressed fracture over left paramedial
site of sagittal suture involving bone side of coronal suture.
14. In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the
learned Trial Court concluded that the act of assault by the
respondent no.2 was with the knowledge that he is likely by such
act to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death and as such, he was held
to be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was
thus held by the impugned judgment that the prosecution failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
7/23
prove the guilt of the accused under Section 341, 323, 325, 504,
307 and 302/34 of the IPC and, accordingly, respondent no.2 was
acquitted of the charges levelled against him under the aforesaid
provisions. However, it was held that the prosecution had proved
the guilt of the respondent no.2 under Section 304 Part II of the
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and was thus convicted
thereunder and later sentenced to R.I. for a term of five years.
Submission on behalf of the appellant
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, at the
outset, that out of the eight witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution, PW-1 to PW-4 have completely supported the case of
the prosecution as eye-witnesses and there is nothing to doubt
their evidence. It has been submitted that the prosecution
witnesses have consistently and cogently supported the allegation
that the deceased was attacked and injured by the iron portion of
the sword by Suraj Kumar, respondent no.2. He was rushed to the
hospital in serious injured condition and referred to IGIMS where
after a few days of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on
18.11.2018. It has further been contended that a false and
concocted story of road accident has been put forward by the
defence, while no such accident ever took place and none of the
witnesses made any such statement regarding accident before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
8/23
Investigating Officer during investigation and nor any hit and run
case has been filed regarding the alleged accident.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to
assault made by respondent no.2 upon the head of the deceased
stands corroborated by the medical evidence as the doctor (PW-7),
who conducted the postmortem examination, has found a
depressed fracture on the head and on removal of scalp bone,
extradural hemorrhage in frontal temporal parietal region and
subdural hemorrhage in right temporal parietal area was found,
besides some multiple abrasion over left foot and right and left
knee. The Doctor has stated the cause of death to be hemorrhage
and shock resulting from the injury that was caused by hard and
blunt object. It has also been contended that the place of
occurrence also stood proved as would be apparent from the
evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) and as such the
prosecution, through its witnesses and the postmortem report of
the deceased (Exhibit-2/PW-7) has been able to establish that it is
a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC as the
assault was made by a dangerous weapon on vital part of the body
with the intention to kill. Accordingly, the acquittal of the
respondent no.2 under Section 302 and other Sections of the IPC,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
9/23
by the impugned judgment is based on erroneous consideration of
facts and law.
Submissions on behalf of the State
17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has, however, submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is
based on proper consideration of evidence available on the record,
supported by clear, logical reasoning and based on legal
principles. It has been submitted that the reasoning of the Trial
Court given for acquittal of respondent no.2 from the charges
under Section 302 and other Sections of the IPC and his
conviction only under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, is based
upon cogent and justifiable grounds and thus, the conclusion
reached by the learned Trial Court warrants no interference.
Analysis and Consideration
18. Before going into the analysis of the evidence, it is
clarified that this court is confining its views and findings to the
extent of acquittal of the respondent no.2 of the offence under
section 302 of IPC along with the other provision of IPC and thus,
appreciation of evidence would be done only in the light of the
same and would not have any bearing on any challenge by the
respondent no. 2 to his conviction under Section 304 part II of
IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
10/23
19. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned APP for the State, as also on the perusal of the
records, we find that the prosecution has examined eight
witnesses, out of whom PW-4, Ranjeet Kumar is the informant of
the case and he has stated that while his father Deep Narayan Sah
was sitting at the door of his house, accused Suraj Kumar
(respondent no.2) along with Umlesh Devi, Sudha Devi, Sushila
Devi, Pankaj Sah and Lalan Sah came and indulged in hurling
abuses and entered into a scuffle with him. He has further deposed
that on the protest raised by his father, Suraj Kumar (respondent
no.2) hit his father on his head with the iron handle of a sword
causing bleeding head injury and when they tried to stop him, the
accused fled away. His father was admitted in Maa Janki Hospital
from where he was referred to IGIMS, where he died on
18.11.2018, after three days of the occurrence.
20. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that in his
written report he had not taken the name of any other person but
for Suraj (respondent no.2) alleging that he had hit his father with
an iron sword. He has also admitted that the respondent no.2 is the
son of his uncle and there was no earlier dispute between the
families. This witness has further admitted that when he first saw
his father he was lying in an injured condition and several people
had already assembled when he reached the place of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
11/23
and no one tried to apprehend respondent no.2, who was present at
the place of occurrence. The witness has, however, denied the fact
that his father had been hit by some person on a motorcycle who
had fled away and the respondent no.2 was made an accused on
account of land dispute. PW-4 has proved the written report and
his signature thereupon which has been marked as Exhibit ‘1’.
21. PW-3, Sanju Devi, the wife of the informant (PW-4)
has also given statements on similar lines. PW-1, Randhir Kumar,
brother of the informant (PW-4) has given an eye-witness account
of the occurrence by stating that respondent no.2 along with others
was abusing his father and when he protested, respondent no.2
went to his house and after getting a sword hit his father on his
head with the iron rod portion of the sword causing bleeding
injury to him, who later succumbed to his injuries at the IGIMS
Hospital on 18.11.2018. PW-2, Kiran Devi, the wife of the
deceased, has also given an eye-witness account narrating the
incident in the same manner as PW-1, Randhir Kumar.
22. Dr. Mukesh Prasad (PW-7), the Medical Officer,
who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the
deceased found the following injuries:
“(i) Multiple abrasion of size ranging from
½ cm x ½ cm to 5 cm x 3 cm, brown-black colour,
partially healed over left foot 1, 2, 3 toe, right knee
extensor surface and; left knee extensor surface.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
12/23
(ii) Partially healed surgically stitched
wound over anterior part of left parietal bone medial
aspect of 10 cm size, containing 8 stitches.
(iii) On removing scalp there was subgaleal
hematoma over parieto-occipital region.
(iv) There was depressed fracture over right
temporal bone of size 6 cm x 5 cm going upward
medically and forward. Second depressed fracture
over left paramedial site of sagittal suture involving
both side of coronal suture of size 4 cm x 7 cm.
(v) On removing scalp bone there was
extradural hemorrhage in left frontal temporal parietal
region and subdural hemorrhage in right temporal
parietal area.”
23. The Doctor has opined that the cause of death is
hemorrhage and shock resulting from above noted injuries caused
by hard and blunt object and has proved the postmortem report as
Exhibit ‘2’. He has further stated in his cross-examination that
head injuries are main cause for death but he could not tell as to
which injury specifically is liable for death. In paragraph-15 of his
evidence he has also stated that such type of injuries may be
inflicted on the body of any person in an accident.
24. The first Investigating Officer (PW-6) had examined
the place of occurrence which was said to be the road in front of
the informant’s house and recorded the statement of the informant
and others, while PW-8, the second Investigating Officer, after
recording the statement of PW-1 and PW-2, submitted charge-
sheet.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
13/23
25. The witnesses produced on behalf of the defence
disclosed a story that the deceased was actually hit by a
motorcycle and he died on account of the injuries received in the
said accident. They have further stated that the respondent no.2
has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous
land dispute.
26. Upon analysis of evidence and from the trend of
examination and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it
appears that while PW-1 and PW-2 have given an eye-witness
account of the occurrence, PW-3 and PW-4 (informant) seem to
have reached the place of occurrence only after the deceased was
already assaulted and lying in an injured condition. It is also
noticed that PW-1 to PW-4 are immediate members of the family
of the deceased, while PW-5, Vikash Kumar, the only independent
witness, has been declared hostile.
27. From a perusal of the F.I.R. and the evidence
adduced during trial, it appears that there is a departure in the
prosecution story from the initial story given by the informant in
his written report to the evidence adduced during trial, inasmuch
as, while the F.I.R. mentions the name of only one accused i.e.,
Suraj Kumar (respondent no.2) attributing him the allegation of
assaulting by sword on the head of the deceased, substantial
improvements have been made during trial by adding name of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
14/23
other accused persons and introducing the fact that the iron
handle/rod portion of the sword was used by respondent no.2
while assaulting the deceased. The introduction of this new story
during trial may well lead to an inference that the same has been
done so that the oral allegations of assault are in consonance with
the injuries as disclosed in the postmortem report (Exhibit-2)
wherein the injury is said to have been caused by hard and blunt
substance and there is no incised injury on the head.
28. Although the prosecution witnesses during trial have
put forth a case of assault by respondent no.2 by means of iron
handle of the sword, the other injuries in the form of multiple
abrasion found on the foot and knee have not been substantially
explained by the prosecution, which again may lead to an
inference of a different manner of occurrence. It has also been
noticed that the Doctor (PW-7) in his cross-examination has stated
that such injuries may be inflicted in an accident and the witnesses
of the defence have also deposed that the death of the deceased
took place as a result of an accident suffered by the deceased by a
motorcycle. However, these defence witnesses have not been able
to give any details of the motorcycle or the person riding the
same. The defence witnesses have also stated that the respondent
no.2 has been falsely implicated on account of land dispute
between the parties but both the said facts relating to accident and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
15/23
land dispute stand contested by the witnesses of the prosecution.
The second I.O. (PW-8) has also stated that he conducted no
investigation regarding the death of the deceased caused by
accident.
29. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant
herein, the informant of the present case, has challenged the
impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal of the respondent
no.2 from charges under Section 302 of the IPC along with some
other Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 307/34 of the IPC, the crucial
issue to be determined is as to whether the prosecution has been
able to establish and prove its case that the death of the deceased
was caused by an act of assault inflicted by respondent no.2 with
an intention to kill the deceased, so as to justify a conviction under
Section 302 IPC, thereby rendering the finding of acquittal
therefrom, vide the impugned judgment as erroneous or hold the
impugned judgment to be tenable considering lack of intention to
cause death, to be inferred from the allegations and attending
circumstances.
30. The position of law is settled by way of various
judicial pronouncements wherein distinctions have been drawn
between “murder” and “culpable homicide not amounting to
murder” and the existence of ‘mens rea’, i.e., an ‘intention’ to kill
has been held to be a necessary concomitant to bring a case within
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
16/23
an ambit of “murder”. In the case of state of State of A.P. vs.
Rayavarapu Punnayya, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382, the
scheme of the Indian Penal Code making such distinction has
been discussed in the following words:
“12. In the scheme of the Penal Code,
“culpable homicide” is genus and “murder” its
specie. All “murder” is “culpable homicide” but not
vice-versa. Speaking generally, “culpable homicide”
sans “special characteristics of murder”, is “culpable
homicide not amounting to murder”. For the purpose
of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of
this generic offence, the Code practically recognises
three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what
may be called, “culpable homicide of the first
degree”. This is the greatest form of culpable
homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as
“murder”. The second may be termed as “culpable
homicide of the second degree”. This is punishable
under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is
“culpable homicide of the third degree”. This is the
lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment
provided for it is, also, the lowest among the
punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable
homicide of this degree is punishable under the
second part of Section 304.”
31. In the case of Deepak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (2018) 8 SCC 228 rendered by a 3 Judges Bench of
H’onble Supreme Court of India considering a case of single blow
of a sword, has held in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 as under:
“7. On consideration of the entirety of the evidence, it
can safely be concluded that the occurrence took place in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
17/23
the heat of the moment and the assault was made without
premeditation on the spur of time. The fact that the
appellant may have rushed to his house across the road
and returned with a sword, is not sufficient to infer an
intention to kill, both because of the genesis of the
occurrence and the single assault by the appellant,
coupled with the duration of the entire episode for 1½ to
2 minutes. Had there been any intention to do away with
the life of the deceased, nothing prevented the appellant
from making a second assault to ensure his death, rather
than to have run away. The intention appears more to
have been to teach a lesson by the venting of ire by an
irked neighbour, due to loud playing of the tape recorder.
But in the nature of weapon used, the assault made in the
rib-cage area, knowledge that death was likely to ensue
will have to be attributed to the appellant.
8. In the entirety of the evidence, the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and
are satisfied that it deserves to be altered to Section 304
Part II IPC. It is ordered accordingly. Considering the
period of custody undergone after his conviction, we
alter the sentence to the period of custody already
undergone. The appellant may be released forthwith if
not required in any other case.”
32. Thus, in order to come to a conclusion whether an
act of assault amounts to “murder” or “culpable homicide not
amounting to murder”, the determinative factor is the presence or
absence of intention of the offender. In case, the intention of
causing death or causing such bodily injury does not come out
loud and clear in the facts and circumstances of a particular case,
it would be difficult to categorize such act as one of murder to be
made punishable under section 302 of IPC. However, there can be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
18/23
no thumb rule with regard to the infliction of a single blow not
being covered within the purview of “murder” and the judicial
pronouncements are in the form of broad guidelines to reach a
particular conclusion. However, the said conclusion with regard to
presence or absence of intention has to be inferred and deciphered
from the attending facts and circumstances of each case which
would include whether there was any planning or premeditation,
what weapon was used, how it was used with what force it was
used and what is the nature of injuries caused so on and so forth.
33. Upon a careful and close scrutiny of the evidence on
record, it appears that the prosecution witnesses giving eye-
witness account and hearsay evidence during trial, have deposed
that the respondent no.2 along with others had initially indulged
into hurling of abuses and scuffle, whereafter the respondent no.2
gave a blow with the iron handle/rod portion of a sword upon the
head of the deceased. There is no allegation of repetition of blow
or any indiscriminate assault upon the deceased. It has also been
admitted by the witnesses that the respondent no.2 happens to be
the nephew of the deceased.
34. Even assuming the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses to be true, the allegation attributed to respondent no.2 is
confined to using the blunt portion of the sword and the medical
evidence adduced in the form of the postmortem report and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
19/23
deposition of the doctor (PW-7) is also to the effect that the
injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. This is
indicative of the fact that had there been any intention to kill, there
was nothing to deter the respondent no.2 from using the sharp
portion of the sword which may have ensured even the immediate
death of the deceased. The deliberate and conscious act of the
respondent no.2 using the blunt/non-lethal part of a sharp edged
weapon is a clear indicator of the lack of intention to kill the
deceased.
35. The background of the incident as narrated by the
prosecution witnesses in the form of some hurling of abuses etc.,
also goes to show an absence of any planning of premeditation by
the accused. Further, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
also reveal that the present case involves an incident of a single
blow by the blunt portion of the sword and this fact may only at
best attribute a knowledge possessed by the accused (respondent
no.2) that his act is likely to cause death, but no intention to cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, can be
imputed to his action.
36. All these facts have been taken into consideration by
the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment for acquittal of
the charges and law is well settled in cases of appeal against
acquittal, that unless and until the finding of the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
20/23
Court is found to be palpably perverse or illegal, the Appellate
Court would not interfere with the same for the purposes of
reversing the finding of acquittal. This proposition has been
clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil
Chandra Mondal vs. State of W.B., reported in (2023) 6 SCC
605 and also in a case of Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs.
State of Bihar, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623.
37. Further, in the case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of
Bihar, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471, which also took note of the
case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4
SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically held that an
appellate court must bear in mind that in cases of acquittal, there
is double presumption in favour of the accused, one being the
presumption of innocence available to him under the principles of
criminal jurisprudence and the second being, acquittal of the
accused, thereby reinforcing the presumption of his innocence.
Paragraph-29 of Rajesh Prasad (supra) is being quoted
hereunder:
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this
Court culled out the following general principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
in the following words : (Chandrappa case [(2007) 4
SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432,
para 42)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
21/23
“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 reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
22/23
(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.”
38. Upon consideration of all the above-mentioned
facts and circumstances and after having examined and analysed
the evidence led by the prosecution, the view of the Trial Court
acquitting the accused (respondent no.2) from the charges under
Section 302 along with Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 307/34 of
the IPC cannot be held to be unsustainable and if two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, in
view of the settled law, this Court does not find any reasonable
ground to disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned
Trial Court.
39. Therefore, considering that the impugned judgment,
so far as it relates to acquittal under Section 302 and other
provisions of IPC is concerned, is based on sound reasons.
40. We, hasten to add that our observations in the
present case are confined to the prayer of the appellant seeking
setting aside of the impugned judgment so far as it relates to
acquittal of the respondent no.2 of the charges under Section 302
along with Sections 341, 323, 325, 504, 307/34 of the IPC.
41. It is, thus, made clear that in case the respondent
no.2 has preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1133 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
23/23
under Section 304 Part II of the IPC as recorded by the present
impugned judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court, our
observations would not prejudice either of the parties in any
manner and the same would be decided on its own merits.
42. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.04.2026
Transmission Date 09.04.2026
Checking your session…