Patna High Court
Naresh Prasad Kanu @ Naresh SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal on Sections 307 and 379 IPC, finding no intent to cause death and confirming the compensation order.
Summary
The appeal challenged the acquittal of four accused under Sections 307 and 379 of the IPC and the compensation awarded to the victims. The incident arose from a land dispute during which the informant and his son were assaulted, sustaining grievous injuries. The trial court found the prosecution failed to prove intent to cause death or theft, acquitting the accused of the murder and robbery charges while convicting them under Sections 341, 325 and 34. The High Court examined the credibility of witnesses, medical reports, and the lack of use of a firearm, concluding that the essential ingredients of Section 307 were absent. It also upheld the compensation order as equitable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal and the compensation decree.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the elements of Sections 307 and 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt
- Whether the injuries sustained indicate an intention to cause death
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000 each to the victims
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 325, 34, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 379 IPC
- Acquittal
- Compensation
- Intent to kill
- Criminal appeal
- Evidence assessment
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1422 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2011 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Naresh Prasad Kanu @ Naresh Sah Son of Late Bhekha Kanu @ Bhekha Sah
@ Shekha Sah @ Late Shekha Kanu Resident of Village - Brahampur, P.S. -
Brahampur, District – Buxar. ... ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ganesha Nand Pandey Son of Sri Shiv Je Pandey Resident of Village -
Brahampur, P.S. - Brahampur, District - Buxar
3. Pintu Pandey Son of Sri Shiv Je Pandey Resident of Village - Brahampur,
P.S. - Brahampur, District - Buxar
4. Mahesha Nand Pandey Son of Sri Shiv Je Pandey Resident of Village -
Brahampur, P.S. - Brahampur, District - Buxar
5. Shiv Je Pandey Son of Sri Ram Ekbal Pandey Resident of Village -
Brahampur, P.S. - Brahampur, District - Buxar
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
Date : 17-04-2026
Heard Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred under proviso
of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
challenging the judgment and order of sentence dated
24.09.2024 and 04.10.2024 respectively, passed by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Buxar in Sessions Trial
No.334 of 2013 (arising out of Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 105 of
2011), whereby and whereunder the respondent nos.2 to 5 have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
2/22
been acquitted from the charges levelled against them under
Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as ‘IPC’) and the compensation amount of
Rs.25,000/- each awarded to the injured victims to be paid by
respondent nos.2 to 5 has also been challenged.
3. The respondent nos.2 to 5 have, however been
convicted for the charges levelled against them under Section
341, 325 read with 34 of the IPC, whereunder they have been
directed to be released on probation of good conduct upon
furnishing bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with direction to make
apperance for a period of three years, from the date of order of
sentence, as and when required and maintain peace and good
behaviour in the mean time. Further, respondent nos.2 to 5 have
been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-, each as
compensation, in the Nazarat of the Civil Court, within a period
of ten days, and this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be divided
equally among both the injured persons, Naresh Prasad Kanu
and his son, Suresh Prasad.
4. The records of this appeal have been placed before
this Court for consideration of the prayer of the appellant.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
Naresh Prasad Kanu (P.W.6), submitted a written application
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
3/22
before the Station House Officer of the Brahmpur Police Station
stating therein that he owns and runs a sweet and samosa shop
situated to the west of the western gate road of Brahmpur Shiv
Mandir, which stands on his own land. It is alleged that on
04.06.2011, while the informant was laying bricks on land
adjacent to his shop to prevent rain water from entering the
premises, the accused persons, namely, Ganeshanand Pandey,
Pintu Pandey, Maheshanand Pandey and Shivji Pandey, all sons
of Shivji Pandey, except Shivji Pandey, who is son of Late Ram
Ekbal Pandey, arrived there armed with deadly weapons.
5.1. It is further alleged that Ganeshanand Pandey
(respondent no.2) exhorted the others to kill the informant,
whereupon all the accused persons assaulted him with mattock,
lathi and spear with the intention to cause his death, resulting in
grievous head injury to him, whereafter he fell on the ground.
Further allegation is that thereafter Ganeshanand Pandey took
away a sum of Rs.2500/- from the cash box of the shop and
Pintu Pandey snatched a gold chain weighing about one bhar
from the neck of the informant, while Mahesh Pandey is alleged
to have taken away the watch from the hand of the informant.
Further, upon alarm being raised, the informant’s son, Suresh
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
4/22
Prasad Kanu, along with several villagers, rushed to the place of
occurrence, whereupon the accused persons fled away.
5.2. It is lastly alleged that the informant’s son, Suresh
Prasad Kanu also sustained an injury on his right shoulder during
the occurrence. It is asserted that the accused persons assaulted
the informant with the intention to kill him. Hence, a prayer was
made for taking appropriate action against the accused persons.
6. On the basis of the above-mentioned written report
of the informant-Naresh Prasad Kanu, Brahmpur P.S. Case No.
105 of 2011 dated 04.06.2011 under Section 341, 323, 504, 324,
379, 307 read with 34 of the IPC was registered by the police
officials against four named accused persons (respondent nos.2
to 5).
7. After completion of the investigation, police
submitted charge-sheet on 30.08.2011 vide charge-sheet No. 190
of 2011 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 325, 307 and 34 of the
IPC, against four accused persons, namely, Ganeshananad
Pandey (R-2), Maheshanand Pandey (R-4) and Shivji Pandey
(R-5), showing accused Pintu Pandey (R-3) as not sent up for
trial. However, learned Magistrate took cognizance against all
the four accused persons (Respondent Nos.2 to 5) under the
aforementioned sections vide order dated 24.07.2013, whereafter
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
5/22
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The
learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondents under
Section 307, 341, 323, 325, 379 and 34 of the IPC vide order
dated 13.11.2014, which were explained to them to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,
during the trial, examined as many as seven witnesses and
exhibited two documents. The defence did not examine any
witness but adduced documentary evidence. The list of
prosecution witnesses and the documents exhibited on behalf of
the prosecution and the defence are mentioned herein-below in a
tabular chart.
List of Prosecution witnesses
Prosecution Name of the witness Description
witness No.
P.W.1 Hari Narayan Yadav Independent witness
P.W.2 Rajendra Prasad Yadav Independent witness
P.W.3 Deepak Prasad Independent witness
P.W.4 Suresh Prasad Informant’s son (injured witness)
P.W.5 Dr. Kumar Gaurav Medical Officer
P.W.6 Naresh Prasad Kanu Informant (injured witness)
P.W.7 Raghuvir Singh Investigating Officer
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
6/22
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Proved by/Attested
by
Ext.1 Injury report of Naresh P.W.5
Prasad Kanu/Informant
Ext.1/A Injury report of Suresh P.W.5
Prasad Kanu/Informant’s son
List of Exhibits on behalf of the defence
Exhibit Description of Exhibit Proved by/Attested
No. by
Ext.A Certified copy of new survey N/A
khatiyan of land bearing Khata
No.1276, Khesara No.1788
Ext.B Certified copy of the G.R. register N/A
(Court of C.J.M., Buxar) showing
the entry regarding sending of
Brahmpur P.S. Case No.104/2011
to the Gram Kutchery
Ext.C Certified copy of the order datred N/A
02.06.2022 passed by the District
Magistrate, Buxar
Ext.D Certified copy of the order dated N/A
25.02.2022 passed by the
Additional Collector (Public
Grievance Redressal), Buxar.
Ext.E Certified copy of the order dated N/A
24.02.2022 passed by the
Additional Collector (Public
Grievance Redressal), Buxar.
Ext.F Certified copy of Civil Suit N/A
No.371/2017 (Shivji Pandey Vs.
Naresh Prasad Kanu and others)
9. The statement of the accused persons under Section
313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 04.01.2017, wherein they have
denied the allegations and have claimed to be innocent.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
7/22
Findings of the learned Trial Court
10. The learned Trial Court, after considering and
analyzing the materials available on record, including the
evidence of witnesses, found that the prosecution witnesses were
all either interested or inimical to the accused persons on account
of an old dispute with regard to property. The reason for dispute
between the parties is said to be their claim over a shop. It has
also been found that three independent witnesses, being P.Ws. 1,
2 and 3, have been examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence.
So far as P.W.4, Suresh Prasad (Informant’ son) and PW-6,
Naresh Prasad Kanu (Informant), are concerned, they are also eye
witnesses of the said occurrence and have sustained injury in the
said occurrence.
11. The learned Trial Court, while analysing the
evidence of P.W.5, Kumar Gaurav, the Medical Officer, who
examined the injured persons and issued the injury reports (Ext. 1
and 1/A), has observed that from his evidence that it does not
appear that the injuries were either dangerous to life or there was
even any possibility that death would be caused on account of
same. Considering the said fact, the learned Trial Court has
concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons. On the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
8/22
basis of the facts and circumstances of the basic dispute being that
of claim over a shop, with respect to which the defence has also
exhibited some documents and also upon consideration of other
other evidence on record, the charge under Section 379 of the IPC
has also not been found to be proved.
12. The learned Trial Court has, however, given the
finding that the prosecution witnesses, giving an eye witness
account of the occurrence, appeared to be credible witnesses and
especially the testimony of P.W.4 and P.W.6, who are also the
injured witnesses, cannot be held to be doubtful. It has also been
considered by the learned Trial Court that since the accused
persons and the witnesses belonged to the same village and are
neighbours, the identification of the accused persons cannot be
doubted. Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence
would not have any adverse impact on the case of the
prosecution. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned
Trial Court has concluded that the charges under Sections 341,
325 and 34 of the IPC are established by the prosecution against
the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt, as such, all the
four respondents i.e. respondent nos.2 to 5 have been found guilty
under the above-mentioned charges, while acquitting them of the
charges under Section 307 and 379 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
9/22
Submission on behalf of the Appellant (informant)
13. Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the impugned judgment, so far as it relates
to acquittal of the respondent nos.2 to 5 from charges under
Section 307 and 379 of the IPC, is fit to be set aside and further
submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Trial
Court is inadequate. It is stated that on account of a land dispute,
all the accused persons, in collusion with each other, inflicted
serious injuries on the informant and his son. It has further been
submitted that all the seven prosecution witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution and the injuries suffered by the two
injured witnesses, P.W.4 and P.W.6 stand corroborated by the
medical evidence in the form of injury report proved by the
Medical Officer.
14. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the appellant
that both the oral evidence, which is an eye witness account of the
witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence corroborating the
same, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, acquittal from the charges under Section 307
and 379 of the IPC is against the weight of evidence and the
findings to such extent are not legally sound.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
10/22
Submission on behalf of the respondent (State)
15. Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted that the present
case arises out of a land dispute and there are vital contradictions
in the evidence of the witnesses, coupled with several
improvements having been made by them during trial, rendering
the entire prosecution case doubtful. It is contended that there is a
dispute between the parties with respect to a shop and the
adjacent land which was the ancestral property of the accused
persons given on rent to the informant, whereupon the informant
and others are claiming their possession illegally. Reference has
been made to the Civil Suit bearing No.371 of 2017 (Ext. F)
which is pending adjudication. It is pointed out that documents
have also been produced by the defence with regard to an earlier
case being Brahmpur P.S. Case No.104 of 2011 (Ext.B).
16. It has also been argued that the independent
witnesses have not supported the occurrence and the prosecution
has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It
has thus been contended that there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment of the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused
persons from the charges under Section 307 and 379 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
11/22
Analysis and Consideration
17. We have perused the impugned judgment of the
learned Trial Court, the entire materials on record and have given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP for
the State.
18. The focal point for consideration is as to whether
the acquittal of the accused persons (respondent nos.2 to 5) from
the charges under Section 307 and 379 of the IPC is justified and
whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the aforesaid
charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubts. This
Court would confine its findings and conclusion to the aspect of
the legality/illegality of the acquittal of the respondents from the
aforementioned charges.
19. On going through the narration of the prosecution
witnesses, it would be apparent that out of the seven witnesses
examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 claim to be the
eye witnesses of the occurrence, out of whom P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 are
independent witnesses, while P.W.4 is the son of the informant
and P.W.6 is the informant himself who also happen to be the
injured witnesses as they are said to have suffered injuries at the
hands of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence. P.W.5 is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
12/22
the doctor who examined the injuries of the injured persons and
the Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W.7.
20. Upon going through the evidence of the aforesaid
prosecution witnesses, we find that while P.W.1 and P.W.3 have
claimed to be eye witnesses in their examination-in-chief, during
the cross-examination, they have stated that when they reached
the place of occurrence they saw blood oozing out from the head
of the injured persons. P.W.2 has also stated before the
Investigating Officer (P.W.7) that the allegation of theft is false.
P.W.3 has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police,
15 to 20 days after the occurrence. These independent witnesses
have admitted that they are not related to the informant but are his
neighbours. The evidence of these witnesses may be viewed with
some suspicion with regard to they being eye witnesses of the
occurrence as from the trend of their examination and cross-
examination, it appears that they have made some noticeable
improvements during trial.
21. We also proceed to consider here that none of
these independent witnesses have stated that any assault was
made with the intention to kill, although they have stated that the
accused persons were armed with sticks, spear and country made
pistol, but for the fact that Ganesh Pandey (respondent no.2) had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
13/22
exhorted to kill the informant. It is also noticed from their
evidence that there are several inconsistencies with regard to the
weapons with which the accused persons were allegedly armed.
22. Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, the son of the
informant, it appears from his evidence that upon exhortation
given by Ganeshanand, mar-pit ensued between the parties in
course of which he along with his father got injured and some
ornamental allegation of taking away of some cash and chain was
also imputed. However, in the cross-examination he has stated
that he does not remember which weapon was used to cause
injury on his father’s head. P.W.6, the informant himself has also
deposed on the same lines but has admitted in paragraph-4 of his
deposition that while he suffered only one injury, his son
sustained 2-3 injuries caused by lathi blow.
23. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to refer to
the evidence of the doctor (P.W.5), who had examined the injuries
of the two injured persons P.W.4 and P.W.6 and found the
following injuries on their person:-
Informant (Naresh Prasad Kanu) :
(i) Lacerated injury on the left uper side of the skull 1’ x 0.2” x
0.3”
(ii) Abrasion on right knee joint with pain & swelling.
Injury no.1 is grievous as X-ray report shows fracture of parital
bone. Injury no.2 is simple in nature.
Informant’s son (Suresh Prasad):
(i) Lacerated injury and swelling with rib on right side of
shoulder.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
14/22
(ii) Abrasion on right ankle joint.
(iii) Body pain.
Injury no.1 is grievous as X-ray shows fracture of 3rd rib on right
side. Injury no.2 and 3 are simple in nature.
24. In the cross-examination, the doctor has clearly
stated that injury no.2 suffered by the informant on the knee joint
could not lead to death, while injury no.1 on the informant’s son
(P.W.4) was found grievous but there was no memo number
indicated on any injury.
25. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer
(P.W.7), it appears that cases have been filed from both the
litigating sides with respect to the same incident and both have
been investigated by him and in both the cases, he had submitted
the chargesheet. However, he has stated that he had found no
blood or any sign of violence on the place of occurrence.
26. The moot question, thus, to be adverted to, is
whether the present case would fall within the ambit of Section
307 of the IPC or under Section 325, as has been concluded by
the impugned judgment, convicting the accused persons/
respondents under Section 325 along with Section 341 and 34 of
the IPC, while acquitting them from the charges levelled against
them under Section 307 and 379 of the IPC.
27. From the medical evidence, as discussed earlier, it
would be apparent that there is one lacerated injury found on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
15/22
skull of the informant, which has been found to be grievous but
the other injury is on the right knee in the nature of pain and
swelling, opined to be simple in nature. So far as the informant’s
son, Suresh Prasad (P.W.4) is concerned, a lacerated injury was
found on the right side of the shoulder, which was opined to be
grievous in nature, but the other two injuries, which were in the
nature of abrasion on right ankle joint and body pain were found
to be simple in nature.
28. It is apparent from a bare look at the injuries
received by the injured persons, that in case of the informant’s
son (P.W.4), no assault has been made on the vital part of the
body and with regard to the informant, Naresh Prasad Kanu
(P.W.6), it is found that although one grievous injury has been
found on the vital part, there is no repetition of any blow,
indicating thereby that there was no intention of the assailant to
cause the death of the injured.
29. It is also a fact that the prosecution story does not
reveal any premeditated plan or mindset to cause death of the
injured persons and, as a matter of fact, it is only on account of
the dispute which took place between the parties on the alleged
date of occurrence, with regard to laying down bricks by
informant adjacent to his shop over which there were competing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
16/22
claim by the accused persons/respondent nos.2 to 5 also, that the
altercation ensued between the parties. As per the evidence of the
I.O., Raghuvir Singh (P.W.7), cases were filed from both the sides
and chargesheet was also filed in both the cases finding them to
be true. The matter thus escalated at the spur of the moment upon
exhortation given by respondent no.2.
30. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, it also appears
that the accused persons were also armed with country made
pistol but the same is not said to be used in the said occurrence,
which is a vital circumstance to indicate that, had there been an
intention to kill, there was nothing deterring the accused persons
from using the same for achieving their objective.
31. The law is settled that for constituting an offence
under section 307 of the IPC, there has to be clear evidence that
the intent behind an act is to cause death of the person. In the case
of Shoyeb Raja vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported
in 2024 SCC Online SC 2624, the said principle was reinforced
and while reiterating the well-settled legal principles governing
Section 307 IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the three
essential ingredients which must be present for the application of
the aforesaid section as enumerated in the case of State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
17/22
Maharashtra vs Kashirao & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC
434. The above-mentioned ingredients are as follows:
1. An attempt to cause death.
2. The act must be capable of causing death or should be done
with the intent to cause death.
3. The action taken by the accused should be imminently
dangerous, and no excuse should justify the risk of death or
serious injury.
32. Thus, it has been held that the critical element is
the intent, regardless of the extent of physical injuries. It has been
highlighted that even minor injuries can lead to serious charges if
the intent to cause death is evident.
33. In the case at hand, none of the above-mentioned
ingredients can be said to be in existence and the very fact of not
using the firearm is a clear pointer towards the fact that there was
no intention to kill. Section 307 of the IPC would not be attracted
merely because a person has received a grievous injury and for
the application of the said provision, the entire background has to
be viewed and analyzed to reach to an irresistible inference that
the intention was only to cause death. In the entire fact scenario,
the dispute between the parties with regard to land and the shop is
an admitted one, for which cases were filed from both the sides. It
is also a fact that it has not been indicated in the injury report as
to from what kind of weapon the said injuries were caused.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
18/22
However, considering the lacerated nature of injury, it can be
inferred that the same was caused by hard and blunt substance.
The nature of injury has been based upon the report of the
Radiologist/X-ray report, but the said expert, conducting the
same, has not been examined.
34. From the foregoing analysis of evidence, it
transpires that the occurrence took place on account of a dispute
between the parties which escalated, eventually leading to a fight
between the parties, and subsequently led to injuries being caused
during the course of such altercation.
35. There is no doubt on the fact that the informant
(P.W.6) and his son, (P.W.4) are the injured witness and the
evidence of an injured witness has a greater evidentiary value and
cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly unless strong and
compelling grounds exist, however, even for accepting the
testimony of an injured witness, there has to be a prima facie
satisfaction that he is a truthful witness and has no reason to
falsely implicate the accused persons. It has been laid down in the
case of Santosh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC
443, that ordinarily, an injured witness would not lie as to actual
assailants but there can be no presumption or any basis for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
19/22
assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or
without any embellishments or exaggeration.
36. Thus, viewing the entire case from the standpoint
of the backdrop of the case, the injuries indicated in the injury
report in the nature of laceration, abrasion etc., non use of firearm
weapons, coupled with the fact that there were no repetition of
blows, it is difficult to infer that the acts of assault were made
with the intention to cause death of any person. The essential
ingredients in order to constitute an offence under Section 307 of
the IPC, do not seem to be established in order to justify a
conviction thereunder. The allegations of theft, in the background
of the fight between the parties, appears to be totally ornamental
and not all prosecution witnesses have mentioned the story of
running away with cash, watch and chain. Thus, the offence under
Section 379 of the IPC also remains not established and the
charges as levelled against the accused persons (respondent nos.2
to 5) with respect to both Section 307 and 379 of the IPC have not
been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
37. Thus, taking an overall perspective of all the
above-mentioned facts and circumstances and after having
examined and analyzed the evidence led by the prosecution, as
also taking a holistic view of the entire case, we find no illegality
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
20/22
or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
with respect to non-applicability of Section 307 and 379 of the
IPC, leading to the acquittal of the respondents from the charges
levelled under the said provisions.
38. At this stage, it also needs to be considered that the
present appeal is one against acquittal from certain charges. It 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.
39. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
21/22
criminal jurisprudence and the second being, acquittal of the
accused, thereby reinforcing the presumption of his innocence.
40. Thus, in view of the above discussion and analysis
based on facts and law, impugned judgment dated 24.09.2024
passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Buxar in Sessions Trial No.334 of 2013 (arising out of Brahmpur
P.S. Case No. 105 of 2011) to the extent of acquittal under the
aforementioned provisions, as challenged by the appellant, is
based on sound reasons and the same warrants no interference.
41. So far as the challenge by the appellant with regard
to the compensation of Rs.25,000/- each, imposed upon
respondent nos.2 to 5, to be deposited for payment to the two
injured persons, is concerned, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the same, as the learned Trial Court has exercised
its discretion in judicious and equitable manner.
42. However, we hasten to add that our observation in
the present case, is strictly confined to the legality/illegality of
acquittal of the respondents from the charges levelled against
them under Section 307 and 379 of the IPC and the amount of
compensation directed to be paid by each respondents.
43. It is thus made clear that in case the respondents
have preferred any appeal against their conviction as recorded by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1422 of 2024 dt.17-04-2026
22/22
the present impugned judgment/order rendered by the learned
Trial Court, the observations and findings of this Court, would not
prejudice either of the parties in any manner and the same would
be decided on its own merits.
44. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
45. The records of the present appeal be sent down to
the learned Court below.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
(Soni Shrivastava, J.)
Trivedi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 23.04.2026
Transmission Date 23.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.