Patna High Court

Ramesh RaiversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 8 July 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, finding no compelling reason to set aside the order.

Summary

The appellant, Ramesh Rai, appealed against the acquittal of eight accused persons for the murder of his father, Ranjeet Rai, alleging that they fired upon him during a political dispute. The trial court had examined eight prosecution witnesses, most of whom were relatives or interested parties, and found inconsistencies, material improvements, and lack of specific evidence linking each accused to the shooting. The court also noted the absence of independent eyewitnesses and the reliance on embellished testimony. Applying established principles on appeals against acquittal, the High Court held that the trial court’s view was a reasonable one and that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

The appellate court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 372 CrPC.
Whether the prosecution evidence established the guilt of respondents 2‑9 beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether material improvements and inconsistencies in witness testimony warranted reversal of the acquittal.
Application of the double presumption in favour of the accused in appeals against acquittal.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 313, 372, 378
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34

Subjects

appeal against acquittal
double presumption
benefit of doubt
murder
firearms
political rivalry
evidence appraisal
related witnesses
Section 302 IPC
Arms Act

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1291 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2011 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Ramesh Rai Son of Late Ranjeet Rai Resident of Village-Sarenja,P.S.
Rajpur,Distt.-Buxar
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav, Resident of Village-Sarenja P.S.
Rajpur, Distt.-Buxar.
3. Jitendra Yadav, Son of Hira Yadav, Resident of Village-Kathtar, P.S.
Rajpur, Distt.-Buxar.
4. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Suryanath Singh Yadav, Resident of Village-
Taranpur,P.S. Rajpur,Distt.,-Buxar.
5. Hridaya Yadav, Son of Chaidrika Yadav, Resident of Village-
Ekdar,P.S. Rajpur,Distt.-Buxar.
6. Ramashish Yadav, Son of Amar Yadav, Resident of Village-
Marniya,P.S. Rajpur,Distt.-Buxar.
7. Bihari Yadav, Son of Late Suchit Singh, Resident of Village-
Taranpur,P.S. Rajpur,Distt.,-Buxar.
8. Baliram Yadav, Son of Late Ramdeo Yadav, Resident of Village-
Sarenja P.S. Rajpur, Distt.-Buxar.
9. Sukhrajo Devi, Wife of Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Resident
of Village-Sarenja P.S. Rajpur, Distt.-Buxar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr.Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)

Date : 08-07-2026

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant-original informant and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
2/31

learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 372

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Code’) by the appellant-original informant against the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.08.2018

passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI,

Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2012 arising out of Rajpur

P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011, whereby and whereunder learned

trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondent Nos. 2 to 9

from the charges leveled against them under section 302/34 and

120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms

Act.

Brief facts of the case

3. The brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through

statement of Ramesh Rai (appellant/informant/PW-3) that on

01.11.2011 at about 4:45 P.M., while he was returning to his

home from his rice mill and came at Sarenja main road, he saw

Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav,

Ashok Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav, both resident of village +

Post – Sarenja; Jitendra Yadav, son of not known (Hira Yadav);

resident of village – Kathtar. P.S. - Rajpur, District – Buxar, and

seen equipped with rifle in their hand, fired upon his father
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
3/31

Ranjeet Rai before him and further alleged that Sanjay Yadav,

son of not known, R/o – village Taranpur, Hirdaya Yadav, son of

not known, R/o – village Ekdar, Ramashish Yadav, son of not

known, R/o – village Maraniya, Bihari Yadav, son of not known,

R/o – village Taranpur, Umesh Yadav, son of Dipa Yadav, R/o –

village Jagpurva. All are of Rajpur police station, District –

Buxar and were equipped with rifle in their hand, shouting to

kill his father. It is also alleged that Baliram Yadav, son of

Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Rajpur, district – Buxar directed to

fire upon him and after firing they were fled away in western

side, thereafter, he came at his house and called his family

members. The reason behind the occurrence is that in panchayat

election Mukhiya Sukhrajo Devi defeated the wife of elder

brother of deceased namely, Shail Kumari Devi, further motive

was also assigned saying that there are litigation between the

parties in Buxar court, which was forced to settle/compromise.

It is also stated that Mukhiya Sukhrajo Devi, wife of Ram

Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav was shouting on road that to kill

his father, otherwise she would again contest the panchayat

election. The aforesaid statement was read by the informant and

was also read over to him, whereafter he signed on the statement

in presence of his villagers, namely, Shashi Bhushan Rai (PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
4/31

1), Jatashankar Rai and Brijmohan Rai (PW-7), son of

Raghubansh Rai.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal First

Information Report being Rajpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011

dated 01.11.2011 was registered, and police after investigation

submitted charge-sheet against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and

after commitment, all the respondents were put on trial, which

ended in their acquittal from the charges leveled against them.

5. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined

eight (8) prosecution witnesses such as:

PW-1 – Shashi Bhushan Rai
PW-2 – Umesh Rai
PW-3 – Ramesh Rai
PW-4 – Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta
PW-5 – SI Shyam Bihari Rai
PW-6 – Ranglal Chauhan
PW-7 – Brij Mohan Rai
PW-8 – Braj Kishore Singh
6. The prosecution has also produced following

documentary evidence:

Exhibit ‘1’ – Signature of informant on fard-e-
beyan
Exhibit 1/1 – Page number on FIR
Exhibit ‘2’ - Post-mortem report.
Exhibit ‘2/1’ & ‘2/2’ - Signature of Dr. Ram Kumar
Gupta and Dr. H.C. Hari on Post-mortem report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
5/31

Exhibit ‘3’ – Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘4’ - Seizure List.
Exhibit ‘5’, ‘5/1’ & ‘5/2’ – Signature of the witness
Ranglal Chauhan and Achyutanand Rai on death
supervision report.
Exhibit ‘6’ – Sanha
Exhibit ‘7’ & ‘7/1’ – F.S.L. Report.

7. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by

taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of

respondents/accused persons were recorded under Section 313

of the Cr.P.C., which was denied by them in totality by claiming

his complete innocence and false implication.

8. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the

trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court acquitted all the

respondents for the offences punishable under section 302 of the

IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and passed the order of

acquittal as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the

present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-informant/

PW-3.

9. Hence, the appeal.

Argument on behalf of the appellant-informant

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 29.08.2018

primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
6/31

appreciate the ocular as well as medical evidence in its proper

perspective and acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 9 on wholly

untenable and hyper-technical considerations.

11. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel

for the appellant that the prosecution case consistently discloses

that the deceased, Ranjeet Rai, was intercepted at Sarenja Main

Road by the accused persons, whereupon accused Ram Suresh

Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav opened

fire inflicting injuries on the body of the deceased, resulting in

his death at the place of occurrence itself. It is further submitted

that the other accused persons were actively participated in the

alleged crime in question by surrounding the deceased and they

were variously armed with rifles and were exhorting the

assailants to kill the deceased. Moreover, Specific allegation has

also been attributed against accused Sukhrajo Devi that she was

instigating the assailants to eliminate the deceased owing to

previous political rivalry arising out of Mukhiya election

dispute.

12. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the learned Trial

Court erred in treating minor discrepancies and omissions as

material contradictions. According to the impugned judgement,

merely because every minute detail was not incorporated in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
7/31

fardbeyan, the prosecution version has been discarded, however

the same should not have been done. It has been also argued that

the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are consistent

with the prosecution case and substantially corroborates each

other regarding the manner of occurrence, participation of the

accused persons and the motive behind the occurrence.

13. It is further contended that the medical evidence

fully supports the ocular version since firearm injuries were

found on the person of the deceased and even the F.S.L. report

supports recovery of bullet from the body of the deceased. It has

also been argued that the learned Trial Court committed serious

error in doubting the presence of witnesses only because

independent shopkeepers or Chhath-vratis were not examined,

though the occurrence admittedly took place in a public place

during evening hours of Chhath festival when people generally

avoid coming forward due to fear and local pressure.

14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent nos.2 to 9 supported the impugned judgment and

submitted that the learned Trial Court, upon meticulous

appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, rightly

arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish

the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
8/31

15. It has been submitted that substantial

improvements were made by the prosecution witnesses during

the trial, which materially affected the substratum of the

prosecution case. Learned counsel submitted that though in the

fardbeyan there was omnibus allegation of firing by three

accused persons, during trial specific attribution regarding

firearm injuries over different parts of the body was

subsequently introduced, thereby rendering the prosecution

version doubtful.

16. It has further been argued that the learned Trial

Court has extensively discussed the inconsistencies inter-se

amongst the prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of

occurrence, place from where the witnesses allegedly witnessed

the occurrence and participation of the accused persons. The

presence of several eyewitnesses itself was found doubtful by

the learned Trial Court for cogent reasons. It is also submitted

that despite the occurrence allegedly taking place at a busy

market area, no independent witness was examined by the

prosecution.

17. Learned counsel for the state/respondents has

further submitted that the learned Trial Court has already taken

one possible and plausible view based upon evidence available
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
9/31

on record. Moreover, once an order of acquittal has been

recorded, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused

persons gets further strengthened by the acquittal recorded by

the Trial Court. Therefore, unless the findings are perverse or

wholly unreasonable, interference in appeal against acquittal is

unwarranted.

18. We have heard and considered the rival

submissions of the parties and perused the materials available

on record.

19. P.W.1, Shashibhushan Rai, has been projected by

the prosecution as an independent eye witness to the occurrence.

In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 01.11.2011 at

about 4:45 P.M., he was proceeding towards his shop situated on

the main road at Sarenja. He deposed that when he reached near

the Pakad tree situated adjacent to the road, he noticed four

motorcycles parked there and around ten persons assembled, all

armed with rifles. He identified amongst them, Ram Suresh

Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Sukhrajo

Devi, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Ramashish Yadav, Sanjay

Yadav, Hriday Yadav and Bihari Yadav. The witness further

stated that while he was standing at a tea shop situated

approximately 45 feet away from the place of occurrence, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
10/31

saw informant Ramesh Rai (appellant/PW-3) coming on

motorcycle along with deceased Ranjeet Rai seated thereon as

pilion rider. According to him, accused Ramashish Yadav first

fired in the air. Thereafter, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav

dragged Ranjeet Rai from the motorcycle and Ram Suresh

Yadav @ Langa Yadav fired upon the head of the deceased from

behind, resultantly he fell to the ground. He further deposed that

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav thereafter fired upon the chest

of the deceased. The witness also stated that thereafter

indiscriminate firing was resorted to and accused Sukhrajo Devi

was exhorting the assailants not to spare Ramesh Rai alive.

19.1. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of

P.W.1, though elaborate, suffers from material improvements

vis-à-vis the original prosecution version. In the fardbeyan,

there is no detailed attribution regarding dragging of the

deceased from the motorcycle or separate specific firing by

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav upon the chest of the deceased.

Such detailed embellishments surfaced for the first time during

deposition before the Court. Further, though P.W.1 claimed

himself to be present merely 45 feet away from the place of

occurrence, no explanation appears as to why despite

indiscriminate firing, he remained completely unharmed and no
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
11/31

independent tea shop owner or customer was examined to

corroborate his presence. The witness also claimed that around

ten persons armed with rifles were assembled at the place of

occurrence prior to arrival of the deceased, which appears

somewhat unnatural considering the fact that the occurrence

allegedly took place at a public place during Chhath festival

hours. The learned Trial Court rightly treated such

embellishments cautiously. The evidence of P.W.1 further

appears inconsistent regarding sequence of firing and exact role

attributed to each accused person when compared with other

prosecution witnesses.

20. P.W.2 Umesh Rai, son of the deceased, is a related

witness and deposed substantially in support of the prosecution

case. He stated regarding previous enmity arising out of

Mukhiya election dispute and supported the prosecution

allegation that accused persons had motive to eliminate the

deceased. The witness stated that the accused persons were

armed with rifles and participated in the occurrence resulting in

death of his father. He attempted to corroborate the testimony of

the informant regarding participation of accused persons and

subsequent death of the deceased at the place of occurrence

itself.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
12/31

20.1. The evidence of P.W.2 suffers from inherent

limitations being a closely related witness with admitted

previous enmity against the accused persons. Though

relationship itself is not a ground to discard testimony, yet where

political rivalry admittedly exists, the possibility of exaggeration

or over-implication cannot be lightly ruled out. The witness

made omnibus allegations against several accused persons

without clearly specifying individual overt acts attributable to

each of them. His testimony also appears to contain

improvements over the fardbeyan regarding manner of assault

and participation of accused persons. The learned Trial Court

rightly noticed that the witness failed to explain satisfactorily

the exact role of several acquitted accused persons beyond

vague allegations of surrounding and exhortation.

21. PW-3, Ramesh Rai, is the informant as well as

son of the deceased and the principal witness of the prosecution

case. He stated that on the date of occurrence, while returning

from his rice mill along with his father on motorcycle, they were

intercepted near Sarenja Mode by the accused persons.

According to him, the accused persons were already assembled

there armed with rifles. The witness alleged that the accused

persons resorted firing causing firearm injuries to his father,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
13/31

who died at the place of occurrence itself. He also deposed

regarding previous political enmity arising out of Panchayat

election dispute and claimed that accused Sukhrajo Devi was

instigating the assailants.

21.1. Being the informant and son of the deceased,

P.W.3 is admittedly an interested witness. The learned Trial

Court, therefore, rightly subjected his testimony to careful

scrutiny. The most significant infirmity in his evidence is

material improvement during trial regarding specific overt acts

of the accused persons. In the fardbeyan, the allegations are

comparatively general in nature, whereas during deposition,

elaborate details regarding sequence of assault and specific

targeting by different accused persons were introduced. Further,

though the witness claimed that several accused persons

surrounded the deceased while carrying rifles, no clear evidence

emerged regarding active participation of each accused person.

Omnibus allegations regarding exhortation and presence with

firearms were generalized against multiple accused persons. The

conduct of the witness after the occurrence also appears

somewhat doubtful inasmuch as despite allegedly witnessing

brutal murder of his father at close range, independent

corroboration regarding his immediate presence was not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
14/31

forthcoming from any neutral witness.

22. P.W.4 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta is the medical

witness who conducted postmortem examination upon the dead

body of deceased Ranjeet Rai. The witness found firearm

injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that death

occurred due to such firearm injuries. The postmortem report

was duly proved by him and marked as Exhibit-2.

22.1. The medical evidence undoubtedly proves

homicidal death caused by firearm injuries. However, medical

evidence is corroborative in nature and does not itself establish

identity or participation of individual accused persons. The

medical evidence also does not conclusively support the

improved prosecution version regarding exact sequence of firing

or attribution of separate firearm injuries to particular accused

persons. Thus, while homicidal death stands proved, the

evidence of P.W.4 does not eliminate doubts arising from

inconsistencies in ocular testimony.

23. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He

proved the formal aspects of investigation including preparation

of seizure list, recording of statements and submission of

charge-sheet. He also proved formal documents including

seizure list and other investigation materials. The Investigating
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
15/31

Officer failed to produce any convincing independent witness

from the locality despite the occurrence allegedly taking place at

a busy public place. Further, no satisfactory explanation appears

regarding non-examination of independent shopkeepers,

passersby or Chhath-vratis who would naturally have been

present nearby. The investigation also appears deficient

regarding precise forensic linkage between seized materials and

individual accused persons.

23.1. The contradictions appearing in statements of

prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis their

depositions in Court also assume significance through the

evidence of the Investigating Officer.

24. P.W.6 Rangalal Chauhan is a formal witness

relating to the death review report. He proved the relevant

formal document and signatures thereon. The witness is

essentially formal in nature and does not materially advance the

prosecution case regarding participation of accused persons. His

evidence has limited evidentiary value on the core issue

involved in the present appeal.

25. P.W.7 Brajmohan Rai, younger brother of the

deceased, supported the prosecution case regarding prior enmity

and occurrence. He attempted to corroborate the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
16/31

version concerning participation of accused persons and alleged

motive arising from Panchayat election dispute. P.W.7 is also a

closely related and interested witness. His testimony

substantially repeats the prosecution narrative without

furnishing independent corroboration regarding specific role of

several acquitted accused persons. Material omissions and

general allegations regarding exhortation and surrounding of the

deceased continue to persist in his testimony as well. The

learned Trial Court rightly found that his evidence failed to

inspire full confidence so far as respondent nos.2 to 9 are

concerned.

26. P.W.8, Brajkishore Singh, A.S.I., is a formal

witness who proved formal police papers and procedural

documents during trial. The witness is purely formal in nature

and does not contribute materially regarding the substantive

prosecution allegations against the acquitted accused persons.

His evidence does not cure the contradictions and deficiencies

appearing in the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses.

27. Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence,

this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate the settled legal

position governing interference in an appeal against acquittal.

28. It is trite that though the appellate court possesses
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
17/31

full power to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence available

on record, yet such power is required to be exercised with great

circumspection where the order under challenge is one of

acquittal. The reason is not far to seek. Once an accused has

secured acquittal after a full-fledged trial, the presumption of

innocence available to him under criminal jurisprudence stands

further fortified and strengthened by the judicial finding

recorded in his favour.

29. The criminal justice system in India proceeds on

the foundational principle that every accused is presumed

innocent unless his guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Such presumption is not merely statutory in character but

constitutes an integral facet of fair procedure guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, an appellate

court while examining a judgment of acquittal must remain

conscious that interference with acquittal has the effect of

unsettling a finding which has already reinforced the liberty of

the accused.

30. Considering the foregoing discussions, this Court

is reminded of the fact that the scope of interference in an

appeal against acquittal is now well settled by a catena of

decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Few
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
18/31

of which are discussed hereunder: -

31. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported as

(2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively

summarized the governing principles and held that where two

views are possible on the evidence available on record, the view

favouring the accused must ordinarily prevail. The Hon’ble

Court further recognized the doctrine of “double presumption”

in favour of the accused in cases of acquittal.

“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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may
reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
19/31

acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

32. Likewise, in Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka

reported as (2014) 5 SCC 730, paragraph 10, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that unless the conclusions recorded by the

Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or

demonstrably unsustainable, the appellate court should be slow

in disturbing an acquittal.

“10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup [Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor, (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : (1934) 40 LW 436 : AIR
1934 PC 227 (2)] , highlighted the approach of the High
Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against
acquittal. Lord Russell said: (IA p. 404)
“… the High Court should and will always give proper
weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views
of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2)
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he
has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused
to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by
a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.”
The opinion of Lord Russell has been followed over the
years.”

33. Further, in Babu Sahebagouda v. State of

Karnataka reported as (2024) 8 SCC 149 paragraphs 38 and

39 reiterate that interference with acquittal is justified only

where the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, wholly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
20/31

unreasonable or contrary to the material available on record.

Merely because another possible view may also emerge from

the evidence cannot itself furnish a ground for reversal of

acquittal.

“Discussion and conclusion
38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles
laid down by this Court governing the scope of
interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the
State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by
the trial court.

39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2
SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering
the field after considering various earlier judgments and
held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29)
“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 [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p.
432, para 42)
‘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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
21/31

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.
(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.’”

40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D.
Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 :
(2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the
principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under
Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8)
“8. … 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis
of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate
court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground
that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
22/31

41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour
of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners
of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only
the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record.”

34. The aforesaid principles are deeply embedded in

constitutional criminal jurisprudence. The appellate court is not

expected to convert suspicion into proof nor to substitute moral

conviction for legal proof. The golden thread running through

criminal law is that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond

all reasonable doubts and, if any, reasonable doubt survives, the

benefit thereof must necessarily enure to the accused.

35. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the

charge, examined altogether eight witnesses, amongst whom

P.W.2 Umesh Rai, P.W.3 Ramesh Rai and P.W.7 Brajmohan Rai

are closely related to the deceased, whereas P.W.1

Shashibhushan Rai has been projected as an independent

witness to the occurrence. P.W.4 is the doctor conducting

postmortem examination, P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer and

P.W.8 is the formal witness.

36. P.W.3 Ramesh Rai, being the informant and son
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
23/31

of the deceased, has supported the prosecution version to the

extent that while he along with his father was returning from the

rice mill on motorcycle, the accused persons intercepted them

near Sarenja Mor and firing was resorted to by the accused

persons, resulting in death of his father. The witness has also

attempted to assign specific overt acts to some of the accused

persons during his deposition before the Court.

37. Likewise, P.W.2 Umesh Rai and P.W.7 Brajmohan

Rai sought to corroborate the prosecution version regarding

prior enmity arising out of Mukhiya election dispute and also

supported the allegation that the accused persons were present at

the place of occurrence armed with rifles.

38. PW.1 Shashibhushan Rai, who has been projected

as an independent witness, stated in his deposition that he had

seen several accused persons assembled near the place of

occurrence and further claimed that accused Ashok Yadav and

Jitendra Yadav dragged the deceased from the motorcycle

whereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav fired upon the

deceased. He further stated that indiscriminate firing took place

after the occurrence.

39. In the present case, political rivalry arising out of

Mukhiya election dispute forms the admitted background of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
24/31

occurrence itself. Therefore, possibility of exaggeration or false

implication of some accused persons could not have been lightly

ignored by the learned Trial Court.

40. The learned Trial Court has rightly noticed that

material improvements surfaced during trial. In the fardbeyan,

there appears omnibus allegation that three accused persons

fired upon the deceased. However, during deposition, witnesses

attempted to introduce detailed overt acts assigning specific

firearm injuries to accused persons. Such embellishments

affecting the core structure of the prosecution case assume

significance in criminal adjudication.

41. Similarly, allegations against several acquitted

accused persons remained largely generalized in nature to the

effect that they were surrounding the deceased while armed with

rifles and exhorting the principal assailants. The evidence does

not consistently establish any overt act attributable individually

to each of the acquitted accused persons.

42. In Chandrappa (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court while delineating the principles governing appeal against

acquittal held that although the appellate court possesses full

power to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, yet where

two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
25/31

ordinarily be adopted. It was further held that in case of

acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the

accused: firstly, the presumption of innocence available under

criminal jurisprudence and secondly, the reinforcement of such

presumption by virtue of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

43. Similarly, in Babu Sahebagouda (Supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that unless the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are manifestly illegal, perverse or

wholly against the weight of evidence, interference with

acquittal would not be justified merely because another possible

view may also be available.

44. Further, in Muralidhar (Supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court succinctly summarized the settled principles

governing appeals against acquittal and held that if the

conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are reasonably possible

on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should

not substitute its own view merely because another view is also

possible.

45. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence available on

record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has assigned

cogent and plausible reasons while extending benefit of doubt to

respondent nos.2 to 9. The prosecution case admittedly rests
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
26/31

substantially upon interested and related witnesses. Though

relationship by itself is not a ground to discard testimony,

nonetheless their evidence is required to be scrutinized with

greater care and caution, particularly where material

improvements and inconsistencies appear in the prosecution

version. Moreover, from the fardbeyan, the allegation appears to

be general in nature that accused Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa

Yadav, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav fired upon the

deceased. However, during deposition, specific overt acts were

subsequently assigned regarding individual firearm injuries over

different portions of the body. The learned Trial Court has

rightly noticed such improvements while assessing credibility of

the witnesses.

46. Further, the learned Trial Court also noticed

inconsistencies regarding the exact manner of occurrence,

positioning of witnesses and participation of several accused

persons. So far as respondent nos.2 to 9 other than the principal

assailants are concerned, allegations appear largely omnibus in

nature relating to exhortation and surrounding the deceased. The

learned Trial Court found absence of consistent and reliable

evidence regarding their active participation.

47. This Court further notices that though the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
27/31

occurrence allegedly took place at a busy market area during

Chhath festival, no independent witness from the locality or

market was examined by the prosecution. Though non-

examination of independent witnesses may not always be fatal,

yet in the facts of the present case, the learned Trial Court

considered the same as one of the relevant circumstances while

extending benefit of doubt.

48. The learned Trial Court also discussed

contradictions regarding the presence of certain prosecution

witnesses at the place of occurrence. Such findings cannot be

said to be wholly perverse or impossible view warranting

interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal.

49. It is trite that suspicion, however strong, cannot

substitute proof. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that

prosecution must establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt

and if two views are possible from the evidence available on

record, the one favoring the accused must prevail.

50. It is well settled that in criminal jurisprudence, the

evidence of related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded

merely on the ground of relationship. At the same time, the rule

of prudence requires that such evidence must inspire confidence

and withstand careful judicial scrutiny. The constitutional
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
28/31

guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India obligates the Court to ensure that conviction is not

founded upon doubtful, wavering or embellished testimony. The

presumption of innocence is not merely a procedural formality;

rather, it constitutes a substantive component of criminal

jurisprudence flowing from the constitutional mandate of life

and personal liberty under Article 21. An accused does not carry

the burden of proving innocence. The foundational burden

always rests upon the prosecution to establish guilt beyond all

reasonable doubt through cogent, reliable and unimpeachable

evidence.

51. In the present case, the learned Trial Court noticed

that substantial improvements were introduced during trial vis-

à-vis the original prosecution version. Though the fardbeyan

contains general allegations of firing by certain accused persons,

the depositions made before the Court introduced further details

regarding individual roles and exact manner of assault. Such

improvements assume significance in a criminal trial where the

liberty of individuals is at stake.

52. The learned Trial Court further found that

allegations against several acquitted accused persons were

omnibus in nature, primarily confined to exhortation and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
29/31

surrounding the deceased while carrying firearms. No clear,

specific and consistent overt act attributable to each of such

accused persons emerged from the evidence. In offences

involving unlawful assembly or common intention, mere

presence at the place of occurrence, without reliable evidence

establishing active participation or sharing of common intention

beyond reasonable doubt, cannot automatically become the

basis of conviction.

53. The constitutional courts, while dealing with

criminal appeals against acquittal, are duty bound to preserve

the delicate balance between the rights of victims and the

fundamental rights of accused persons. The criminal justice

system in India is not conviction-oriented but justice-oriented.

The jurisprudential object is not to secure conviction at all costs,

but to ensure that conviction follows only upon satisfaction of

the judicial conscience through legally admissible and

trustworthy evidence.

54. This Court is conscious that the occurrence

resulted in loss of human life and that criminal law must

respond sensitively to such grave offences. Yet, the solemn duty

of a constitutional court is to ensure that conviction rests on

legal proof and not on moral conviction alone. Between “may
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
30/31

be true” and “must be true”, the prosecution is required to

traverse the entire distance by reliable evidence. If reasonable

doubt persists, the benefit thereof must necessarily enure to the

accused.

55. The learned Trial Court, after detailed appreciation

of ocular and documentary evidence, found the prosecution

version doubtful insofar as respondent nos.2 to 9 are concerned

and consequently extended benefit of doubt to them.

56. This Court finds that the said view is a plausible

and legally sustainable view emerging from the materials

available on record and therefore does not warrant interference

in an appeal against acquittal. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the appreciation of evidence undertaken by the learned

Trial Court cannot be termed arbitrary, capricious or perverse.

The conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court constitute

a reasonably possible view emerging from the evidence

available on record.

57. Accordingly, keeping in view the settled principles

governing interference in appeal against acquittal and the

doctrine of double presumption in favour of the accused, this

Court does not find any compelling or substantial reason to

interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 29.08.2018 passed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1291 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
31/31

by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Buxar

in Sessions Trial No.97 of 2012 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case

No.121 of 2011.

58. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly

dismissed.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.:- I agree.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 07.05.2026
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.