Patna High Court
RAM AKBAL YADAV @ RAM IKBAL YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding no error or illegality in the judgment.
Summary
The appellant, Ram Akbal Yadav, appealed the acquittal of four accused persons charged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of his son. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce any substantive witnesses despite issuing bailable and non‑bailable warrants and dasti summons. The informant himself filed an affidavit supporting the defence and did not appear in court, further weakening the prosecution case. The appellant did not challenge the service of summons or warrants in the appeal. The High Court held that the trial court had taken all lawful steps to procure witness testimony and correctly concluded that the prosecution evidence was insufficient, dismissing the appeal as frivolous and imposing costs on the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for lack of prosecution evidence.
- Whether the service of summons, bailable and non‑bailable warrants to prosecution witnesses was proper.
- Whether the informant's affidavit supporting the defence affects the prosecution's case.
- Whether the appeal raised any meritful ground for interference with the trial court's judgment.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- acquittal
- insufficient evidence
- witness non‑appearance
- IPC murder
- appeal
- procedural law
- summons
- affidavit
- frivolous appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.184 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-701 Year-2016 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
RAM AKBAL YADAV @ RAM IKBAL YADAV S/o- Prem Lal Yadav
Resident of Village - Jogbani Ward No. 14, P.S. - Jogbani, District - Araria.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abdhesh Sah S/O- Rameshwar Sah Resident of Village Jogbani, Ward No.
13, P.S. Jogbani, District - Araria.
3. Parshuram Sah S/O- Tilak Sah Resident of Village Jogbani, Ward No. 13,
P.S. Jogbani, District - Araria.
4. Upendra Sah S/O- Tilak Sah Resident of Village Jogbani, Ward No. 13, P.S.
Jogbani, District - Araria.
5. Ravi Kumar Sah S/O- Rambilash Sah Resident of Village Jogbani, Ward No.
13, P.S. Jogbani, District - Araria.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Km. Shashil Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 22-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant in this case has challenged the
judgment dated 02.01.2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
impugned judgment) passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-V, Araria (in short ‘the learned trial court’) in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
2/8
Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2017 (CIS No.175/2017) arising out of
Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 701 of 2016.
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has
been pleased to acquit the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the charges
under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. The prosecution case is based on the fard-beyan of
Ram Ekbal Yadav (the informant) recorded by S.I. Om Prakash,
S.H.O., Simraha P.S. on 30.12.2016 at 14:15 hours at Pothia Nahar
Pool. In his fard-beyan the informant has alleged that in the night
of 29.12.2016 after taking meal his son, namely Ajay Kumar
Yadav, aged about 18 years, went to sleep with his grandfather and
the family members also went to sleep. In the morning, when the
informant got up at about 05:00 am, he did not find his son with
his grandfather. Thereafter, the informant along with his family
members made a search for him in the neighbourhood, when his
son did not come back home till 10-11 AM, they started enquiry
from the village people, in course thereof when they reached to the
market, they came to know from people there that head of a person
has been found near Pothia Nahar, upon which the informant along
with his family members went to Pothia Nahar Pool, where he and
the persons accompanying him identified from the photograph of
the head in a mobile phone, the clothes and the chappal to be that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
3/8
of his son. The informant has further stated in his fard-beyan that
prior to the occurrence his son was being threatened on mobile of
being killed by Ramvilash Sah and his family members as they
were suspected about the character of the son of the informant who
was studying in the same school with daughter of accused
Ramvilash Sah. It is further stated in fard-beyan that the son of the
informant was having love affair with the daughter of accused
Ramvilash Sah, he has been killed by accused Ramvilash Sah,
Avadhesh Sah, Ravi Kumar Sah, Kunal Kumar Sah, Sheela Devi,
Parsuram Sah and Upendra Sah by decapitating his head with
sharp cutting weapon. The accused persons were taking the head
of his son to conceal it, however, as the vehicle in which the head
was being carried met with an accident, they all fled leaving the
vehicle, the head of the son of the informant, mobile fitted with
SIM, chappal, Clothes and the knife, which were recovered from
the place of occurrence.
5. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-
sheet bearing charge-sheet no. 43/17 dated 16.03.2017 for the
offences under Section 302/201/34 IPC against respondents No. 2
to 5. In the charge-sheet altogether eight witnesses have been
named in support of the prosecution. On submission of the charge-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
4/8
sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide
order dated 29.03.2017 and summoned the accused persons.
6. On finding that the charges against respondents No. 2
to 5 are triable by the court of Sessions, the records were
committed to the court of Sessions, where it was assigned to the
court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Araria,
and the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2017.
Charges were framed against the respondents No. 2 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The
charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. It appears on perusal of the impugned judgment that
in course of trial only two prosecution witnesses, namely, Amul
Yadav (PW 1) and Ram Kumar Yadav (PW 2) appeared to support
the prosecution case. Both of them are hearsay witnesses.
8. In its judgment, the learned trial court has recorded
that in the present case after framing of the charges on 03.06.2017
several opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce
the witnesses. In this regard, it is stated that the learned court has
issued bailable warrants on 14.03.2019, non-bailable warrants on
20.05.2019 and then issued dasti summons on 19.07.2019, but
despite of the efforts taken by the learned court, the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
5/8
did not produce any witness. So far as PW 1 and PW 2 are
concerned, the learned trial court has found that they have not
supported the prosecution case against the accused persons. They
had not stated that who had killed Ajay Kumar Yadav and on
whose information these witnesses came to know about this
murder. In absence of sufficient evidence on the record against the
accusation of the respondents No. 2 to 5, the learned trial court
acquitted them of the charges.
9. It appears that the informant of this case did not
appear to support the prosecution case in the learned trial court. In
the memorandum of appeal presented before this Court, the
informant-appellant has not made any statement that he was not
served with the summons/bailable warrants/non-bailable warrants.
There is no averment that he was not aware of the ongoing trial. In
the grounds raised before this Court, again there is no ground
taken that the learned trial court had not taken steps to serve the
informant and other prosecution witnesses. Only a vague ground
has been taken that non-examination of the informant, Doctor and
the IO of the case by the prosecution itself indicates that the fact
that the impugned judgment was passed without application of
judicial mind.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
6/8
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has only reiterated
the grounds taken in the appeal.
11. On the other hand learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that on bare perusal of the
trial court records it would appear that the learned trial court had
taken all possible steps in accordance with law to procure the
presence of the witnesses. The orders passed by the learned trial
court on various dates stated hereinabove would show that the
court had issued bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants and then
it also gave dasti summon to the witnesses. Learned APP has
submitted that it is a case of no evidence, hence, no illegality or
infirmity may be found in the impugned judgment.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully
perused the trial court records. It is evident that in this case, the
learned trial court framed the charges on 03.06.2017. Thereafter,
when the prosecution witnesses were not turning up on the
summons issued by the court, the learned court issued bailable
warrants vide order dated 14.03.2019. Even on the bailable
warrants when the witnesses did not turn up then learned trial
court issued non-bailable warrants vide order dated 20.05.2019. In
the margin portion of the order-sheet of the trial court, the date on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
7/8
which the NBWs were issued to the witnesses and the dasti
summons were issued have been duly recorded. The appellant has
not challenged the endorsements made in the order-sheets showing
the issuance of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable
warrants. The appellant has not pleaded before this Court that there
was no service of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable
warrants. What is disturbing is that before this Court, the
informant-appellant has suppressed the fact that in the trial court
the informant had sworn an affidavit to support the defence. The
affidavit of the informant is available in the trial court records.
Perusal of the affidavit shows that he had gone in collusion with
the defence and made a statement that he had lodged the case
against the accused persons under some misconception. He
declared his intention not to proceed with the case. Having filed
this affidavit on the record, the informant, as it appears, did not
participate in the trial.
13. Be that as it may, we are satisfied on perusal of the
record that the learned trial court closed the prosecution evidence
only after exhausting all possible steps in accordance with law.
14. There being no ground in the memorandum of
appeal that the summons were not served upon the appellant and
that the trial proceeded without service of summons, we are of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.184 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
8/8
considered opinion that the learned trial court has not committed
any error in taking a view that the prosecution has failed to prove
the charges against the accused persons-respondents No. 2 to 5.
We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the
trial court.
15. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
16. As we have found that the appellant himself went on
record by filing an affidavit to support the defence and then did not
appear in the case in course of trial and even before this Court he
did not take any ground that he was not duly served, to this Court
it appears that it is a completely frivolous kind of appeal which has
only wasted the time of the Court. We, therefore, impose a cost of
Rs.10,000.00 (Ten Thousand) upon the appellant which he would
deposit with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee
within a period of one month from today.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 27.01.2026.
Transmission Date 27.01.2026.
Checking your session…