Patna High Court

Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s acquittal, finding no fault with the lower court’s finding and dismissing the appeal.

Summary

The appellant Ajay Kumar challenged the acquittal of respondent Sahdeo Sah, who had been charged with murder under Section 302 IPC and with illegal possession of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on fifteen witnesses, many of whom were family members of the deceased, and on medical and investigative reports, but failed to produce the weapon, ballistic evidence, or a reliable record of the crime scene. The trial court held that the prosecution had not proved Sahdeo Sah’s participation, noting inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, the unexplained 25‑hour delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of forensic corroboration, and therefore acquitted him. On appeal under Section 372 CrPC, the Patna High Court examined whether the trial court’s finding was perverse or illegal and reiterated the double presumption of innocence that protects an acquitted accused. Concluding that the evidence remained insufficient and that the trial court’s decision was sound, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the participation of respondent No.2 in the murder under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and other procedural lapses vitiate the prosecution case.
Whether an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC.
The reliability and admissibility of the eyewitness testimonies presented by the prosecution.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 134
Indian Penal Code — s. 302

Subjects

murder
acquittal
burden of proof
evidentiary insufficiency
Section 302 IPC
Section 27 Arms Act
appeal against acquittal
double presumption of innocence
forensic evidence
delay in FIR

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1404 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2016 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar S/o- Late Jagdish Prasad Satyarthi Resident Of Village- Mahnar
Bazar, Ward No 7, Bari Durgaji Road, PS- Mahnar, Dist- Vaishali

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sahdeo Sah S/o- Late Juga Sah Village-Mahnar W.No-16, PS- Mahnar Dist-
Vaishali

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)

Date : 09-04-2026

The present appeal has been preferred under

proviso of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

challenging the judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Court

of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Samastipur in Sessions

Case No.812 of 2017 (arising out of Dalsinghsarai (Vidyapati)

P.S. Case No. 32 of 2016) whereby and whereunder the

respondent no.2 has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court

from the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and section
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
2/21

27 of the Arms Act.

2. The records of this appeal have been placed

before this Court for consideration of the prayer of the

appellant.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as unfolded from

fardbayan of the informant (PW-11) recorded on 21.03.2016 at

about 16:00 hours at Paras Hospital, Patna by the SHO,

Vidyapati Nagar (PW-14), is that the deceased, who was the son

of the informant, was residing along with his wife Asha Jaiswal

and two sons at the house of his father’s brother-in-law, Raj

Kumar Chaudhary, at Bajitpur. He was carrying on business of

trunks, boxes, chairs, racks, tables, etc., in a rented shop

belonging to one Muneshwar Chaudhary at Bajitpur market. It is

alleged that on 20.03.2016, in the afternoon, the informant’s

wife Manju Jaiswal (PW-2), his son Anjan Kumar (PW-1) and

his sister Saraswati Devi (PW-7) had gone to meet the deceased

for some necessary work. At about 6:30 PM, while they were

sitting on the roof of the house, they noticed four persons riding

on two motorcycles approaching, out of whom one Sahdeo Sah

(respondent no.2) was identified as a pillion rider. At about 7:00

PM, when the deceased was returning from his shop carrying

vegetables, the sound of a gunshot was heard. Upon looking
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
3/21

towards the place of occurrence, the aforesaid witnesses

allegedly saw the accused persons fleeing towards the western

direction on a motorcycle, one of them having a pistol in his

hand, while the other assailants could not be identified. It is

further alleged that the deceased was seen staggering and falling

on the road near an electric pole near the shop of Shankar

Chaudhary. The injured was immediately taken to PHC,

Vidyapatinagar, thereafter to Sub-Divisional Hospital,

Dalsinghsarai and was subsequently referred to Paras Hospital,

Patna, where he was admitted in a critical condition.

The informant has stated that he was

informed about the occurrence by his sister and son, who were

in a state of shock and unable to narrate the incident in detail.

Further, it has been alleged that the informant’s wife, Manju

Jaiswal, in collusion with other councillors, had removed the

wife of the accused Sahdeo Sah, namely Asha Devi, from the

post of Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Mahnar, by passing a

no-confidence motion. On account of the said incident, Sahdeo

Sah allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation

and extended threats of dire consequences.

It is the further case of the prosecution that

the injured succumbed to his injuries on 22.03.2016, whereafter,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
4/21

a second fardbayan of the informant was recorded on the same

day at Paras HMRI Hospital, Raja Bazar, Patna at about 9:00

AM, which was forwarded to the SHO, Vidyapati Nagar. The

contents thereof were substantially similar, and on that basis,

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the FIR on

28.03.2016.

4. On the basis of the above-mentioned fardbayan

of the informant (PW-11), Dalsinghsarai (Vidyapati) P.S. Case

No. 32 of 2016 was registered by the police against respondent

no.2 and the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused

person on 22.04.2017. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and

the accused was put on trial.

5. Further, after commitment of the case to Court of

Sessions, charges under Sections 302 of the IPC and Section

27(1) of the Arms Act were framed against respondent no.2 on

11.12.2017 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

6. The prosecution to substantiate its case during

trial, has examined as many as fifteen witnesses and has

exhibited several documents, while the defence has also

examined three witnesses and has adduced documentary

evidences. The list of prosecution witnesses, along with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
5/21

documents exhibited on behalf of both the prosecution and the

defence are mentioned hereinbelow in a tabular chart:

List of Prosecution witnesses

Rank Name Nature of Evidence
PW-1 Anjan Kumar Eye witness
(Informant’s son)
PW-2 Manju Jaishwal Eye witness
(Informant’s wife)
PW-3 Asha Jaiswal Hearsay witness
(Wife of deceased)
PW-4 Vinod Chaudhary Hearsay witness
(Neighbouring)
PW-5 Baijanath Chaudhary Hearsay witness

PW-6 Amit Kumar @ Bittu Hearsay witness
(Neighbouring)
PW-7 Saraswati Devi Hearsay witness
(Sisterof informant)
PW-8 Vishundeo Sah Hearsay witness
PW-9 Ram Naresh Sah Hearsay witness
PW-10 Gopal Kumar Sah Hearsay witness
PW-11 Ajay Kumar Hearsay witness
(Informant)
PW-12 Indu Devi Hearsay witness
(Sisterof Informant)
PW-13 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Expert Witness
PW-14 Ekbal Ahmad Khan 1st I.O.
PW-15 Mukesh Kumar 2nd I.O.

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Ex. No. Rank Description
Ext-1 PW-4 Signature of PW-4 on fardbayan
Ext-1/1 PW-11 Signature of informant on fardbayan
Ext-1/2 PW-14 Faradbayan
Ext-1/3 PW-11 Signature of the Mani Bhushan
Jaishwal on second fardbayan
Ext-1/4 PW-11 Signature of PW-11 on protest petition
dated 17.05.2016
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
6/21

Ext-2 PW-13 Post-Mortem Report
Ext-3 PW-14 Seizure list
Ext-3/a PW-14 Seizure list of the mobile of deceased
produced by the informant.
Ext-4 PW-14 Formal FIR

List of Defence witnesses

Rank Name Nature of Evidence
DW-1 Sahdeo Sah Accused
DW-2 Devendra Paswan Alibi witness
DW-3 Shanti Swaroop Shopkeeper and proprietor of
Sai Enterprises, Patna.

List of exhibits on behalf of defence
Ex. No. Description
Ext-A Computerized bill of mobile dated 20.03.2016
Ext-B The C.D. of cctv footage of Sai enterprises, Patna
Ext-C Affidavit dated 19.11.2016 of DW-3
Ext-D Certified copy of judgment in S.T. No. 342 of 2000
Ext-E Certified copy of judgment in S.T. No. 317 of 2018
Ext-F Certified copy of FIR in Desri p.s. case no. 60 of
2004
Ext-G Certified copy of final form of Desri p.s. case no. 60
of 2004
Ext-H Certified copy of FIR of Mohaddinagar P.S. case no.
63 of 2005
Ext-I Certified copy of final form of Mohiuddinnagar
P.S.63 of 2005
Ext-J Certified copy of F.I.R of Hajipur Town P.S. Case
No.226 of 2009
Ext-K Certified copy of final form of Hajipur Town P.S.
Case No.226 of 2009
Ext-L Certified copy of F.I.R in Hajipur Town P.S. Case
No.1125 of 2014
Ext-M Certified copy of Final Form in Hajipur Town P.S.
Case No.1125 of 2014
Ext-N Certified copy of F.I.R in Patory P.S. Case No. 423 of
2021
Ext-N/1 Certified copy of F.I.R in Manhar P.S. Case No. 103
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
7/21

of 2007
Ext-N/2 Certified copy of F.I.R in Manhar P.S. Case No. 104
of 2007
Ext-N/3 Certified copy of F.I.R in Manhar P.S. Case No. 144
of 2012
Ext-O Certified copy of Final Form in Patory P.S. Case No.
423 of 2021
Ext-O/1 Certified copy of Final Form in Manhar P.S. Case
No. 103 of 2007
Ext-O/2 Certified copy of Final Form in Manhar P.S. Case
No. 104 of 2007
Ext-O/3 Certified copy of Final Form in Manhar P.S. Case
No. 144 of 2012

7. The prosecution evidence was closed on

06.05.2019 and the statement of the accused/respondent no.2

was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 16.12.2019, wherein

he denied the allegations and pleaded innocence.

Findings of the Trial Court
8. The learned Trial Court, upon analysing the

evidence and appreciating the submissions tendered on behalf of

the parties with respect to the charges levelled against the

respondent no.2, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has

not been able to prove the participation of respondent no.2. The

learned Trial Court has exhaustively enumerated its findings by

considering that the fardbayan was not properly proved, the

place of occurrence not being well-established and proved as the

same was held to be not visible from the house of the victim.

The non-production of the pellet and ballistic record with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
8/21

respect to the seized empty cartridge, etc. further rendered the

entire manner of occurrence to be doubtful considering

improvements made by witnesses during the trial. It has also

been considered that the prosecution failed to get the report of

the FSL marked as Exhibit, inquest report, dead body challan

and the post-mortem report have also been not legally and

properly proved. The learned Trial Court has also considered

that the motive behind the occurrence is also remote and bleak

and the court was thus of the firm view that the respondent no.2

deserved to be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.

9. The learned Trial Court has also found serious

infirmities in the prosecution case under the charge for section

27 of the Arms Act considering that the prosecution neither

produced the ballistic report with respect to use of ammunition

nor was able to produce the pellets recovered from the body of

the deceased which were all essential for establishing the charge

under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court, thus,

came to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has only

relied upon the testimonies of related/interested witnesses

whereas there are several legal and factual infirmities in the

prosecution case rendering the same doubtful. The respondent

no.2 was, as such, given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
9/21

from all the charges levelled against him.

Argument on behalf of Appellant

10. The learned counsel for the informant/appellant

has submitted that there is no delay in lodging the FIR and, in

any event, any alleged delay stands duly explained. It is

submitted that the Officer-in-Charge-cum-Investigating Officer

had first made a Sanha entry and thereafter promptly proceeded

with the investigation. In the absence of any material to suggest

that the FIR is fabricated or that any prejudice has been caused

to the accused, no benefit can be extended to the accused on this

ground.

11. It is further argued that PWs 1, 2, 3, and 7 are

eyewitnesses to the occurrence, having witnessed the same from

the roof, and their testimonies are duly corroborated by PW-4,

who has affirmed their presence at the place of occurrence.

Their evidence is consistent, cogent, and free from material

contradictions, thereby inspiring confidence. Additionally, Pws

6, 8 and 9 being witnesses present in the vicinity of the place of

occurrence, have supported the prosecution case and have

deposed about the death being caused due to firearm injury, thus

lending further assurance to the prosecution version.

12. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
10/21

11 is relevant, as he received information from PWs 1, 2, and 7

and has consistently deposed regarding the recording of the

fardbayan, preparation of the inquest report, forwarding of the

dead body, and the existence of prior enmity arising out of

political rivalry. The evidence of PW-13 also assumes

significance, particularly as no material contradiction has been

elicited in the cross-examination, especially on the aspect of

close-range firing.

13. The prosecution further relies upon the

testimonies of PWs 14 and 15, being official witnesses, to

substantiate the investigation and its scientific aspects, and in

the absence of any specific challenge regarding delay in FIR, no

adverse inference can be drawn. It is also contended that the

place of occurrence, being adjacent to the residential premises

of the victim near the roadside, was clearly visible from the

vantage point of the witnesses. Further, the learned counsel for

the appellant has submitted that the plea of alibi advanced by

the defence is unreliableas, as the same must be proved with

absolute certainty, which the defence has failed to do.

14. Lastly, the conduct of the accused including his

abscondence after institution of the case and subsequent arrest

pursuant to attachment proceedings, coupled with his movement
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
11/21

in the surrounding areas, further indicates his involvement.

Hence, minor lapses, if any, in the investigation do not affect the

core of the prosecution case, and the evidence on record being

consistent and trustworthy, the accused is liable to be convicted,

as such, the impugned judgment of acquittal is thus fit to be set

aside.

Argument on behalf of State:

15. Per contra, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State strenuously opposed the submissions of

the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the findings

of the learned Trial Court with respect to the acquittal of

respondent no.2 by contending that respondent no.2 has been

falsely implicated on account of an enmity between the parties

with regard to political rivalry.

16. It has been submitted that there is an

unexplained delay of about 25 hours in lodging the FIR giving

rise to considerable doubt upon the authenticity of the contents

thereof. The said delay becomes fatal to the prosecution case in

background of the fact that there are several other lacunae in the

prosecution case including the fact that neither the Inquest

Report nor the dead body challan has been produced in court in

evidence, coupled with the fact that the evidence of PW-14
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
12/21

(Investigating Officer) affirms that the same do not contain the

FIR number. The case number also does not find place in the

Post-mortem Report (Ext-2) prepared by PW-13, further

indicating the fact that till preparation of the post-mortem

report, no FIR was lodged.

17. It is further submitted that the place of

occurrence has also not been established as there is lack of

uniformity in the statement of the prosecution witnesses with

regard to the same. The place of occurrence is further doubted

on account of absence of objective evidence, like blood stained

soil not being collected from the place of occurrence and the

alleged empty cartridges recovered therefrom, not being

subjected to examination. Furthermore, neither the motorcycle

nor any weapon of assault was recovered or seized during

investigation and the source of light and means of identification

was also not proved.

18. Further, emphasis has been laid on the fact that

although out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, PW Nos. 1, 2, 3

& 7 claimed to be eyewitnesses, their evidence loses all sanctity

and credibility as from the evidence of PW-14 (IO), it would be

gathered that they were not examined by him at the place of

occurrence. PW-14 has rather stated in his evidence that he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
13/21

recorded the statements of PWs 2, 3, 7 & 12 as late as on

29.03.2016, i.e; almost after nine days of the occurrence and no

explanation for the same has been tendered. None of the local

witnesses named the accused during investigation and no

relatives of the victim/ deceased were found to be at or near the

place of occurrence. Further, the defence plea of alibi also

stands supported by the fact that the tower location of the

mobile of the accused/respondent no.2 was not found near the

place of occurrence, as per scientific examination. However, the

main thrust of submission is that the prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, as such,

the acquittal of respondent no.2 warrants no interference.

Analysis and Consideration

19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

appellant/informant and learned APP for the State and

considered and analysed the impugned judgment and materials

on record, including both oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the prosecution and defence.

20. The prosecution has examined altogether 15

witnesses out of whom PW-11, the informant, is not an

eyewitness of the occurrence and has given his statement on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
14/21

basis of the version of PWs 1, 2 & 7, who although claimed to

be eyewitnesses, but such claim has been made subject to

scrutiny on various accounts. PW-4 to 10 (except PW-7) are

independent witnesses who have supported the death of the

deceased caused by firearm injury but have not stated about the

involvement of the accused/respondent no.2 in the said offence

and PW-12, is a related witness who also does not claim to be an

eyewitness. While PW-13 is the doctor who conducted post-

mortem and supported death by firearm injury, PW-14 & PW-15

are investigating officers of this case. The defence has also

examined some witnesses including the accused/respondent

no.2 himself as DW-1 to show his innocence and also establish

his plea of alibi.

21. It is gathered from the records that the police

had arrived at the place of occurrence upon rumour and

thereafter recorded the fardbayan of the informant (PW-11) on

the next day,i.e; after lapse of more than 25 hours of the

occurrence and no plausible reason has been tendered for such

delay in lodging of the FIR. Moreover, the informant (PW-11)

has himself stated in Para-5 of his deposition that he neither

read the self-statement nor the same was read out to him by PW-

14. As such the FIR itself suffers with inherent infirmities.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
15/21

22. It also transpires from the records that the place

of occurrence has not been well established by the prosecution,

in as much as, the same has been differently stated by the

witnesses, especially PW-14 and PW-11. Furthermore, no

objective evidence in the form of blood stained soil, the

motorcycle, and the arms used in the offence has been recovered

or seized from the place of occurrence and the empty cartridge

(Ext-M) was never sent for ballistic examination. It is also a fact

that the so-called pellet recovered from the body of the deceased

at the time of post-mortem, was also neither produced nor

marked as an exhibit. Thus, no effort was made by the

prosecution to get the pellet matched with the empty cartridge,

which was recovered, as such, no conclusive connection can be

drawn between the two.

23. So far as the incident being witnessed by some

of the prosecution witnesses is concerned, it is clear that the

informant (PW-11) is not an eyewitness of the case and he has

admitted this fact that he had lodged the FIR upon revelations

made by PWs 1, 2 & 7. However, the evidence of these

witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2 & 7 are replete with several

contradictions which pose serious doubt on their evidence as

eyewitness. It is apparent from their evidence that PWS 1, 2 & 7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
16/21

along with PW-3 claimed to have seen the occurrence from the

rooftop of the house of the deceased from where the place of

occurrence would not have been visible, as this fact has been

admitted by PW-7 and the same stands corroborated by the

evidence of I.O (PW-14).

24. Further, from Para-86 of the evidence of I.O

(PW-14), it would be gathered that no eyewitness to the incident

was found at the place of occurrence or even in vicinity and as a

matter of fact the statement of these witnesses were recorded by

the I.O at a much belated stage at their residential house and

they were not examined at the place of occurrence. PW-10 and

other independent witnesses also did not disclose the presence

of PWs 1, 2 & 7 at the scene of crime. It is also a fact that these

witnesses are the immediate family members of the deceased

and there was a political rivalry between the families.

25. In the same context it is further noticed that the

so-called eyewitnesses have neither lodged the fardbayan nor

are signatories to the same. The independent witnesses

examined in this case are PWs 4 to 10 (except PW-7). Out of

these independent witnesses, while PW-5 has been declared

hostile by the prosecution, PW-s 4, 6, 9 & 10 have not disclosed

the name of any accused and have also clearly stated that they
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
17/21

did not see any family members of the deceased at the place of

occurrence rather it was PW-10 who accompanied the

victim/deceased till Vidyapatinagar Hospital.

26. It is apposite to note further that the plea of

alibi taken by the accused/respondent no.2 also seems to have

been supported by the fact that the tower location of his mobile

was not found at the place of occurrence as admitted by the I.O

(PW-14) as well as the defence exhibits being exhibit-A, B & C,

showing the presence of accused in Patna, which have also been

admitted in evidence and the prosecution has not controverted

the same in a proper legal manner.

27. From the entire analysis of evidence, we find

that the prosecution has mainly relied upon the number of

witnesses which is as many as fifteen, examined on his behalf

but has not paid heed to the fact that quality and not quantity of

evidence, is the requirement in law for proving the veracity of a

case. This proposition is in consonance with Section 134 of the

Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 139 of BSA).

Merely by examining a number of witnesses whose testimony

are not of sterling quality in the backdrop that the other

witnesses have not disclosed the name of the accused, as such,

would not be of much help to the prosecution, in absence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
18/21

other corroborative evidence.

28. Considering in the light of rival submissions,

we find that the prosecution suffers from several deficiencies

and there are several gaping loopholes impacting the veracity

and credibility of the case of the prosecution. In the wake of

such insufficient evidence, the learned Trial Court has taken a

view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

shadow of doubt against Respondent No.2. This view taken by

the learned Trial Court is thus a possible and probable view and

there appears to be no perversity in the same, leading to

acquittal of the accused/Respondent No.2, extending to him the

benefit of doubt.

29. The law is well settled that in cases of appeals

against acquittal, unless and until the finding of the learned Trial

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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
19/21

30. 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)
“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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
20/21

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.
(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.”

31. Upon consideration of all the above-mentioned

facts and circumstances and after having examined and analyzed

the evidence led by the prosecution which is infested with some

glaring deficiencies shaking the very foundation of the case, we

are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Trial

Court, acquitting the accused/Respondent No.2, giving him

benefit of doubt. In view of the settled law, even if two

reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on

record, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to disturb

the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

32. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid and

considering that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

is based on sound reasons, the same warrants no interference as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1404 of 2024 dt.09-04-2026
21/21

we do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings

recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment

dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-V, Samastipur in Sessions Case No.812 of 2017

(arising out of Dalsinghsarai (Vidyapati) P.S. Case No. 32 of

2016).

33. Accordingly, the present appeal stands

dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

( Soni Shrivastava, J)

Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date 18.04.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.