Patna High Court
Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The appellate court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter to the trial court to record the evidence of the investigating officer and the post‑mortem doctor.
Summary
The appellant Rajesh Yadav alleged that his brother was murdered during a land dispute and that six accused, including Amit, Gunay, Khokha, Arvind Yadav and Kiran Devi, were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The trial court relied on only three prosecution witnesses, none of whom were material, and failed to examine the first investigating officer and the doctor who performed the post‑mortem. The appellant contended that this omission violated the principles of a fair trial and that the evidence was not fully considered. The High Court examined the trial record, noted the half‑hearted attempts to summon the key witnesses, and held that the acquittal was based on incomplete evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the acquittal, remanded the case to the trial court to record the testimony of the investigating officer and the doctor, and directed a speedy conclusion of the trial.
Issues considered
- The trial court erred in closing the prosecution evidence without securing the attendance and examination of material witnesses, namely the first investigating officer and the post‑mortem doctor.
- Whether the acquittal of the accused under multiple IPC sections is sustainable in view of the procedural deficiencies and the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
- Whether the appellate court can set aside the acquittal and remand the case for further evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 413
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- murder
- fair trial
- evidence
- investigating officer
- post‑mortem
- procedural lapse
- appeal
- Criminal Procedure
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1253 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2020 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
======================================================
Rajesh Yadav Son of Late Ramji yadav Resident of Village - Bishanpur, P.S. -
Bihra, District - Saharsa
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Amit Yadav Son of Bucho Yadav Resident of Village - Bishanpur, Ward
No.09, P.S. - Bihra, District - Saharsa
3. Gunay Yadav Son of Late Dukha Yadav Resident of Village - Bishanpur,
Ward No.09, P.S. - Bihra, District - Saharsa
4. Khokha Yadav Son of Late Raghunath Yadav Resident of Village -
Bishanpur, Ward No.09, P.S. - Bihra, District - Saharsa
5. Arvind Yadav Son of Khokha Yadav Resident of Village - Bishanpur, Ward
No.09, P.S. - Bihra, District - Saharsa
6. Kiran Devi Wife of Khokha Yadav Resident of Village - Bishanpur, Ward
No.09, P.S. - Bihra, District - Saharsa
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos.2, 4 to 6: Ms. Meena Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, 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 Ms. Rashmi Jha, learned counsel for the
appellant, Ms. Meena Singh learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2, 4 to 6, Mr. Amarnath Jha, for the respondent no. 3 and Ms.
Shashi Bala Verma, learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
2/19
2. The present appeal has been preferred under proviso
to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or
B.N.S.S.) challenging the judgment and order dated 14-08-2024
passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions
Trial No.127 of 2021 (arising out of Bihra P.S. Case NO. 127 of
2020) whereby and whereunder the respondents have been
acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges levelled
against them under Sections 147,148, 323/34, 302/149, 307/149,
324, 341, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as ‘IPC’).
3. The records of this appeal have been placed before
this Court for consideration of the prayer of the appellant.
Prosecution case
4. The prosecution case, based on the written report of
the informant, namely Rajesh Yadav is that on 14.06.2020 at about
07.00 PM, while the informant’s brother Sakkan Yadav @
Sikandar Yadav was returning from tea shop and reached near his
house, on account of a land dispute, all the named accused persons
along with 3 to 4 unknown persons, variously armed with farsa,
dabiya and iron rod, forcibly took him to their door. Upon
exhortation given by Arvind Yadav to kill him, Khokha Yadav and
Amit Yadav caught hold of his hands, while Kiran Devi held his
waist and Gunai Yadav gave farsa blow on his head, on account of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
3/19
which the informant’s brother got severely injured with bleeding
injuries and fell down. It is further alleged that Arvind Yadav,
Kiran Devi, Amit Yadav and Gunai Yadav continued to
indiscriminately assault his brother resulting in injuries all over his
body. Upon protest, the accused persons also threatened the
informant and his family members and fled away. The injured
victim was taken to hospital for treatment where he was declared
dead whereafter post-mortem was held and the dead body was
handed over to them. Brijendra Yadav, Mukesh Yadav, Suresh
Yadav and other villagers are alleged to have seen the occurrence
and there is a further allegation that Kiran Devi took out Rs.1 Lakh
from his brother’s pocket and snatched gold chain.
5. On the basis of the above-mentioned written report of
the informant- Rajesh Yadav, Bihra P.S. Case No. 127 of 2020
dated 15.06.2020 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302,
379, 504 and 506 of the IPC was registered by the police officials
against 6 named accused persons including Respondents No. 2 to 6
and 3 to 4 unknown accused persons.
6. After completion of the investigation, police
submitted charge-sheet on 06-09- 2020 vide charge-sheet No. 159
of 2020, against four accused persons namely Khokha Yadav (R-
4), Arvind Yadav (R-5), Amit Yadav (R-2), Gunay Yadav (R-3) and
subsequently, on 31-12-2020 supplementary charge-sheet vide
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
4/19
charge-sheet No. 272 of 2020 was submitted against Kiran Devi
(R-6).
7. Upon submission of charge-sheet, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa took cognizance under sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 326, 307, 302, 504, 506 of IPC against
Respondents No. 2 to 5 vide order dated 09-12-2020, and further
on 11-01-2021, he was pleased to take cognizance under the same
provisions as stated above against Respondent No. 6. Original as
well as supplementary records were amalgamated on the request of
the Ld. PP and was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order
dated 20-03-2021, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2021.
Accordingly, the trial proceeded against five accused persons.
8. Further, Learned Trial Court proceeded to frame
charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307,
302, 504, 506 IPC against the aforesaid accused
persons/respondents No. 2 to 6, vide order dated 24-11-2021, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution, to substantiate its case during trial,
has examined three witnesses and has exhibited two documents,
while the defence has not adduced any evidence, either oral or
documentary. The list of prosecution witnesses and documents
exhibited on behalf of prosecution are mentioned hereinbelow in a
tabular form:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
5/19
List of Prosecution witnesses
Prosecution Name of witness Description
Witness No.
PW-1 Buchan Yadav Hostile
PW-2 Rajesh Yadav Informant
PW-3 Pramod Jha I.O. (2nd )
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
Exhibit ‘P1’ Signature of PW-2 on written Exhibited by PW-2
petition.
Exhibit ‘P1’ Registration on written Exhibited by PW-3
application
10. The statement of the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 09-07-2024, wherein they
have denied the allegations and have claimed to be innocent.
Finding of the Learned Trial Court
11. The learned trial court, upon analyzing the
evidence and deposition of the prosecution witnesses with respect
to the charges levelled against the respondents, arrived at the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish
well beyond reasonable doubt, both the criminal act and intent of
the accused persons and that the prosecution was not able to bring
home the charges against the accused persons. Accordingly, the
accused persons/respondents stood acquitted of the charges
framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307,
302, 504, 506 IPC, by extending the benefit of doubt and thus
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
6/19
accused persons Arbind Yadav (R-5), Kiran Devi (R-6) and
Khokha Yadav (R-4) discharged from the liabilities of their bail
bonds and accused Gunay Yadav (R-3) and Amit Yadav (R-2)
were directed to be released from custody, if not required in any
other case.
Submission on behalf of the Appellant
12. The learned counsel on behalf of the
appellant/informant submits that the learned Trial Court has not
considered the gravity of the offence involved in the present case
as well as completely ignored the grave procedural lacunae,
which is hazardous to a fair trial. The learned Counsel mainly
focused her argument on the fact that the material witnesses such
as the first Investigating Officer (S.I. Arvind Kumar Mishra) and
the Doctor (Dr. Shekhar Prasad Biswas) who conducted post-
mortem on body of the deceased and whose evidence would have
had a deep and pervasive impact on the entire prosecution case
leading to a just and fair decision, were although summoned by
the learned Trial Court, the court did not ensure to look into the
service report of summons of all witnesses. The Court proceeded
to even issue bailable warrants against some witnesses but records
do not reveal the service report of execution of the same.
13. It has further been submitted that the learned Trial
Court issued non-bailable warrants against the non-examined
prosecution witnesses vide order dated 08-04-2024 but despite
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
7/19
issuance of the same, they did not appear. It is also pointed out
that no proper and effective steps were taken to secure the
appearance of the official witnesses, such as the first Investigating
Officer and the doctor and their non-appearance hampered the
proper adjudication of the case.
14. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the
learned Trial Court has dealt with this important issue of
examination of witnesses in a very casual and mechanical manner
and merely passed orders of issuance of summons etc. without
even ensuring their proper execution. As a consequence of such
negligent approach, the charge-sheet witnesses, which includes
the private witnesses Pravesh Kumar, Salo Devi and Santu Yadav
and the first Investigating Officer S.I. Arvind Kumar Mishra,
were not examined at all and it may be pointed out here that it
was the first Investigating Officer who conducted the major part
of the investigation and had even recorded the statement of
witnesses during the investigation, as such he was an extremely
important witnesses of the prosecution.
15. With regard to the doctor who conducted the Post
Mortem examination on the body of the deceased, it is submitted
that he was neither examined during the course of the trial nor
any effort was made to get the post-mortem report marked an
exhibit. It has thus been contended that in the background of the
fact that there is a direct allegation against the accused persons/
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
8/19
respondents that the deceased was brutally assaulted, which stood
supported by the post-mortem report indicating incised injuries
caused by sharp cutting weapon to be the cause of the death, the
examination of the doctor conducting the post-mortem and
proving the Post Mortem Report during trial assumes extreme
significance. It has thus been submitted that a grave miscarriage
of justice has been caused by the non-examination of material
witnesses which eventually led to the acquittal of the accused
persons, which has been caused on account of failure of duty on
the part of both the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Trial Court.
Submission on behalf of the State/ Respondents
16. The learned APP for the state and the learned
counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 6 have submitted at the
outset that the judgment of the learned Trial Court does not suffer
from any illegality, in as much as, the same is based upon proper
consideration of evidences which were adduced during trial. The
prosecution has produced only three witnesses out of which PW-1
did not support the case of the prosecution and as such was
declared hostile, whereas PW-3, who is the second Investigating
Officer of the case has clearly stated that he only submitted
charge-sheet and did not take statement of any witnesses in this
case. PW-2, the informant of this case, is the only witness
claiming to be an eye-witness but since his sole testimony was not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
9/19
treated as that being of ‘sterling quality’, in absence of other
corroborative evidences, could not be made sole basis of
conviction and rightly led to a judgment of acquittal, granting
benefit of doubt.
17. It has further been submitted that despite issuance
of summons and other processes, the witnesses of the prosecution
chose not to appear, and in this background the judgment of
acquittal does not warrant any interference.
Analysis and consideration
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
considering the evidence led at the trial as well as upon perusal of
records, this court finds that instead of entering into the merits of
the case, the issue raised through the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and a vital argument arising therefrom needs to be
first addressed and analyzed. We are thus, taking into
consideration the appellant’s argument relating to non-
examination of material witnesses/chargesheet witnesses on
account of the closure of the prosecution evidence without taking
proper and legal recourse to ensure the attendance of these
witnesses during trial.
19. It is noticed that the prosecution in order to
substantiate its case, examined only three out of total seven
witnesses named in the charge-sheet and the supplementary
charge-sheet, being PW-1 Buchan Yadav, a co-villager who was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
10/19
declared hostile during trial, PW-2 the informant of the case and
PW-3 the second Investigating Officer who had submitted charge-
sheet. It is apparent that the remaining chargesheet witnesses and
most importantly the first Investigating Officer who conducted
the entire investigation, including the examination of place of
occurrence and recording of statements of witnesses during
investigation was not examined. The doctor who conducted the
post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, was also
not examined nor the post-mortem report could be proved during
trial.
20. Upon perusal of the records, it transpires that
initially, on the date of framing of charges i.e., on 24-11-2021, a
general order issuing summons to prosecution witnesses was
passed and thereafter summons were issued to the prosecution
witnesses vide order dated 12-04-2023. The subsequent order
sheet indicates that bailable warrant of arrest were also issued
upon the non-examined, non-official witnesses upon receiving of
service reports of summons. Further, PW-1 & PW-2 were
examined on 02-06-2023 and 10-08-2023, respectively. But, so
far as the Investigating Officer is concerned (not clearly
mentioning whether it was the first Investigating Officer or the
second Investigating Officer), summons were issued vide order
dated 23-08-2023 and by the same order ,noticing the fact that the
Investigating Officer did not mention the name of the doctor in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
11/19
the witness column of Charge-sheet, the learned Trial Court
directed to issue summons to the doctor through Civil surgeon,
Saharsa. From the order-sheet dated 05-09-2023 of the learned
Trial Court, it appears that the attendance of the doctor, Dr. S.P.
Biswas was filed but since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the
matter was posted on 30-09-2023, however, on the next few dates
no prosecution witness was in attendance and the direction was
given to the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the remaining
witnesses.
21. The records further indicate that without the
service report of bailable warrants, NBW was issued to the non-
examined Prosecution Witnesses vide order dated 08-04-2024
whereafter PW3 was examined on 09-05-2024. As late as on 30-
05-2024, there was a direction to issue summon specially against
the first Investigating Officer S.I. Arvind Kumar Mishra and
giving a last chance to the learned Public Prosecutor for
producing the remaining witnesses including the first
Investigating Officer vide order dated 24-06-2024. The learned
Trial Court finally closed the evidence on 01-07-2024 on the
prayer of accused persons and the case was thus, fixed on 09-07-
2024 for recording of the statements of the accused persons under
section 313 Cr.P.C.
22. The records of the Trial Court, as examined by
this court, reveal that some efforts were made to produce the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
12/19
witnesses, but so far as the official witnesses i.e., the first
Investigating Officer and the doctor are concerned, the efforts can
be said to be half-hearted or not executed with such seriousness as
to secure the attendance of these witnesses which was extremely
important for proper adjudication of this case and for ensuring a
fair trial, more so, in the background of the fact that the doctor
had appeared on one date while the presiding officer was on leave
and yet sincere efforts and effective steps were not taken either on
behalf of the Public Prosecutor or the learned Trial Court to get
him examined as a witness.
23. Trials may result in conviction or acquittal but it
is the solemn duty of the concerned court and the officers of the
court to make all endeavors so that the trial is fair and the
conclusion of the trial is based on just and proper findings of the
court which can only emerge if the norms of a fair trial is
followed in its true letter and spirit.
24. At this juncture, this Court is tempted to quote
from the case of J. Jayalalithaa Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court deliberated on the concept of fair trial and it reads as
hereunder: -
“29. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice
to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It
necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a
fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
13/19
the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict
the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a
search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and
must be conducted under such rules as will protect the
innocent and punished the guilty. Justice should not only
be done but should seem to have been done. Therefore, free
and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the
Constitution……………………..”
25. Further, in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I.
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down
in paragraph-16 as under:
“16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal
procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that
such fairness is not hampered or threatened in manner.
Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victims
and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the
grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person
concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a
constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no
circumstances can a person’s right to fair trial be
jeopardised…………….”
26. Being conscious of the principles and norms of a
fair trial as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially
keeping in view the fact that the case at hand relates to a murder
trial where the objective of finding the truth should not be
frustrated by one or the other reason, including not enough
interest taken by the public prosecutor or the duties not
adequately discharged by the court concerned. A three Judges
Bench in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
and Others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 655 has also dealt with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
14/19
examination of the Investigating Officer and the duties of the APP
and the concerned Court in the words as quoted hereunder:
“9. In our view, in a murder trial it is sordid
and repulsive matter that without informing the police
station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded
with by the court and by the APP and tried to be
disposed of as if the prosecution has not led any
evidence. From the facts stated above, it appears that
the accused wants to frustrate the prosecution by
unjustified means and it appears that by one way or
the other the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the
APP have not taken any interest in discharge of their
duties. It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to issue
summons to the Investigating Officer if he failed to
remain present at the time of trial of the case. The
presence of investigating officer at the time of trial is
must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If
there is failure on the part of any witness to remain
present, it is the duty of the court to take appropriate
action including issuance of bailable/non-bailable
warrants, as the case may be. It should be well
understood that the prosecution cannot be frustrated
by such methods and victims of the crime cannot be
left in a lurch.”
27. Upon examining the records of the present case,
this Court also noticed that the High Court during the pre-trial bail
proceedings had observed that the trial be concluded
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date
of the order which was 29.03.2023, whereafter the learned Trial
Court had sought for an extension on 01.04.2024 for three months.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
15/19
However, the court could neither secure the presence of the first
investigating officer nor the doctor who conducted the
postmortem examination, which were two very vital witnesses
whose examination was imperative for a just decision of the case.
28. In a situation akin to the one existing in the
present case, where the High Court had fixed a preferable time for
conclusion of trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bablu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another,
reported in (2015) 8 SCC 787, went on to state that keeping in
view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the
interest of the community and the duty of the court, the court
cannot be a silent spectator or mute observer when it presides over
a trial and it is its duty to see that neither the prosecution nor the
accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity
of the proceeding. The words of the Hon’ble Apex Court are being
quoted hereunder:
“22……….The court is duty-bound to see that
neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary
adjournments and take the trial under their control. The
court is under the legal obligation to see that the
witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution are
produced by it or if summons are issued, they are actually
served on the witnesses. If the court is of the opinion that
the material witnesses have not been examined, it should
not allow the prosecution to close the evidence. There can
be no doubt that the prosecution may not examine all the
material witnesses but that does not necessarily mean that
the prosecution can choose not to examine any witness
and convey to the court that it does not intend to cite the
witnesses. The Public Prosecutor who conducts the trial
has a statutory duty to perform. He cannot afford to take
things in a light manner…………..”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
16/19
29. The records of the present case further reveal that
by order dated 30.05.2024 the office was directed to issue
summons against first Investigating Officer, SI. Arvind Kumar
Mishra in addition to earlier instances of directing the Public
Prosecutor generally to produce remaining witnesses. On
24.06.2024, the learned PP was again directed to produce
witnesses including the Investigating Officer, as a last chance
given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. However, there
is no service report of the summon being received by the
concerned Investigating Officer and no further efforts seem to be
made either by the Public Prosecutor or by the Concerned Court
to secure his attendance as on the very next date i.e. on
01.07.2024, the prosecution evidence was closed and the date
was fixed for recording of the statement of the accused persons
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
30. So far as the Doctor is concerned, as earlier
noted, even though he made an appearance on a particular date
when the Presiding Officer was on leave, no further efforts or
reminders were sent for his appearance and on account of his
non-appearance, the postmortem report could not be brought on
record and the non-examination of the first Investigating Officer
also led to non-proving of documents like the inquest report and
other material facts which would have had a serious impact on
the final decision of the trial.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
17/19
31. In a criminal case, the fate of the proceedings
cannot be left entirely in the hands of the parties as the concept of
fair trial entails protection of interests of the accused, the victim
and the society at large. Courts thus, have an overriding duty to
maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The
concerned court must thus take active interest to elicit and bring
on record all relevant materials to find out the truth in order to
reach a proper conclusion as regards to the guilt or otherwise of
the accused persons so that justice is administered with all
fairness to both the contesting parties.
32. Taking into consideration all the foregoing
reasons, submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon
the examination of materials on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal is
not based on complete evidence as the entire evidence has not
been brought on record, as such, the same has not been
appreciated by the learned Trial Court before passing the order of
acquittal.
33. Thus, without entering into the merits of the case,
we find it expedient in the interest of justice to remand the matter
to the learned trial court to ensure service of summons on the
concerned I.O. and the doctor and after recording of their
evidence, appropriate orders be passed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
18/19
34. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by
the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial
No.127 of 2021 (arising out of Bihra P.S. Case NO. 127 of 2020)
is hereby set aside and remanded to the learned trial court to
decide the matter afresh after recording the evidence of the
Investigating Officer S.I. Arvind Kumar Mishra and Dr. Shekhar
Prasad Bishwas, who conducted post-mortem examination on the
body of the deceased, after securing their attendance. It is further
directed that after recording the evidence, the learned trial court
would proceed to conclude the trial as early as possible and
practicable, preferably within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.
35. The respondent nos.2 to 6 shall surrender in the
learned Trial Court within four weeks from the date of uploading
of this judgment failing which the Trial Court shall take
coercive action to secure their presence. If the respondent nos.2
to 6 surrender in the Trial Court within the aforesaid period, the
Trial Court shall allow them to continue on bail on execution of
fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court. The Trial Court
shall take appropriate steps to procure presence of the
prosecution witnesses and shall also give adequate opportunity to
the defence. The trial should proceed on day-to-day basis keeping
in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of The Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mir Usman @ Ara
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1253 of 2024 dt.02-04-2026
19/19
@ Mir Usman Ali reported in 2025 INSC 1155, unless it
becomes imperative to adjourn the matter for a cogent reason.
36. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed
with the aforesaid directions to the learned Trial Court.
37. Let a copy of this judgment together with the entire
trial court records be sent down to the Trial Court through the
messenger of the Court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.04.2026
Transmission Date 16.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.