Patna High Court
LAKKHI DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellant Lakkhi Devi challenged the acquittal of four accused in a rape case arising from an alleged assault on 18 April 2010. The trial court had found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 376(D) IPC and acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the complaint's non‑compliance with Section 154(3) of the CrPC, the lack of reliable eyewitness identification, and the absence of medical evidence. The court noted that the prosecution’s witnesses were either unreliable or had conflicts of interest, and no identification parade was conducted. Applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the court held that the presumption of innocence remained and the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact.
Issues considered
- The complaint petition complied with the procedural requirements of Section 154(3) of the CrPC.
- Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 376(D) IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appellate court can set aside an acquittal in the absence of fresh material evidence.
- Whether the identification of the accused was valid given the lack of a proper identification parade.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 154(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(D)
Subjects
- rape
- acquittal
- appeal against acquittal
- Section 376(D) IPC
- Section 154(3) CrPC
- identification parade
- presumption of innocence
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.316 of 2024
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2605 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2010 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui
======================================================
Lakkhi Devi W/o Suro Pandit @ Suresh Pandit R/o vill - Maharaidih, P.S. -
Chakai, Distt. - Jamui. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sato @ Satyadev Ray S/o Late Dwarika Ray R/o vill - Maharaidih, P.s. -
Chakai, Distt. - Jamui
3. Ramdeo Ray S/o Mathura Ray R/o vill - Narodih, P.S. - Chakai, Distt. -
Jamui
4. Prakash Ray S/o Saryug Ray R/o vill- Maharaidih, P.s. - Chakai, Distt. -
jamui. .. ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
11 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment of the acquittal
dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
1, Jamui in Sessions Trial Case No. 144 of 2016, arising out of
Chakai P.S. Case No.87 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the
learned Trial Court has been pleased to record a finding that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case and based on the said
finding, the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the accused
persons of all the charges levelled against them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.316 of 2024(11) dt.23-03-2026
2/6
3. We have earlier called for the records of the Trial
Court and perused the same.
4. A complaint petition was filed on 21.04.2010,
showing the date of occurrence as 18.04.2010, but it was sent to
the Chakai Police Station for institution of a case vide order dated
18.05.2010. The complainant/informant alleged that on 18.04.2010
at 6:00 P.M. while she was busy in grazing of cow and regressing
to her house, the accused persons under the influence of liquor
caught hold her and put on the ground and unclothed her. The
accused Satto @ Satyadeo Ray put off her cloth and committed
rape, accused Ramdeo Ray pressed her mouth and accused
Prakash Ray also caught hold her hands. The complainant also
caused the teeth bite to the accused and when she raised alarm, the
accused persons ran away from there. Thereafter, the complainant
gone to her house and narrated the entire incident to her family
members.
5. On going through the evidences available on the
record, we find that in this case initially after eight days of the
occurrence a complaint case was filed in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamui through PW-3. Perusal of the said
complaint petition would show that it was not supported by any
affidavit and it does not place on record the copy of the written
application allegedly given to the police station. The complaint
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.316 of 2024(11) dt.23-03-2026
3/6
petition does not show compliance with the requirement of Section
154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as existing at the time
of the occurrence), in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava and Another Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC
287.
6. The police submitted charge-sheet bearing
no.20/2014 dated 31.01.2014 for the offences under Section
376(D) of the IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined three
witnesses, namely Ramsakhi Devi (PW-1), Bhikhari Pandit (PW-
2) and the victim (PW-3). The I.O. of the case has not been
examined. On behalf of the defence, two documents i.e. the
certified copy of the judgment in Sessions Trial No.472/2010 and a
certificate issued by Eastern Cold Field have been brought on
record which have been admitted without objection and marked as
Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.
8. On going through the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3, the learned Trial Court has found that Triveni Rai, who is
cousin brother of Satto Ray, had lodged a criminal case earlier
against the husband of the victim and in connection with the said
case, he had also gone behind the bars. The PW-2, Bhikhari
Pandit, has admitted in his cross-examination that the distance
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.316 of 2024(11) dt.23-03-2026
4/6
between his village to Chakai Police Station is about 14
Kilometers and the Jamui Civil Court is 100-120 Kilometers. He
has admitted that Suro Pandit is not his co-villager and the said
Suro Pandit and Laxmi Pandit were not known to him. The
accused persons were also not familiar to him. This witness has
stated that Suresh Pandit had brought him to the Court for
deposition. He had also taken him to the police station for his
deposition and the cost of journey was also paid by him. He has
stated that he was not having any torch and there was no electricity
light at the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court is correct
in appreciation of his evidence by holding that this person by his
own deposition is not known to the accused persons at the time of
the incident, therefore, he could not have named the accused
persons and his statement that he had seen the accused persons
namely, Satto Ray, Ramdeo Ray and Prakash Ray running away
from the place of occurrence is not believable. No T.I.P. was
conducted in this case for identification of the accused.
9. This Court finds that even the victim (PW-3) has
stated that the occurrence had taken place in the forest area
through which she was returning on 18.04.2010 at 6:00 P.M. This
witness has deposed that when she raised alarm, Eitwari Pandit,
Bhikhari Pandit, Choudhary and Manoj as also Ramsakhi Devi
came there and, thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.316 of 2024(11) dt.23-03-2026
5/6
place of occurrence. She has deposed in her cross-examination that
her husband had also gone to jail in the criminal case and has
admitted that Triveni Rai is the cousin brother of Satto Ray,
Naresh Ray and Rajo Ray. The learned Trial Court has noticed that
in paragraph-11, this witness has admitted that Satto Rai is the son
of Dwarka Rai. In Paragraph-12, this witness has admitted that her
husband had gone to jail custody in Chakai P.S. Case No.31 of
2010, which was filed by Triveni Rai and Triveni Rai is the gotiya
of Satto Rai. The witness admits that there is a dispute between her
and the accused persons regarding possession of Mahua Tree. The
witness has further denied any knowledge that her husband had
also filed a criminal case against the accused persons or not. She
denied the suggestion put by the defence that Chakai P.S. Case
No.32 of 2010 was filed by her husband Suresh Pandit against
Prakash Rai and Triveni Rai and when he got released from the jail
custody, this false case has been lodged against the accused
persons. She has deposed in paragraph-16 that this complaint case
was filed by her counsel on 18.04.2010 and the witness had put
her thumb impression on the same, however, her husband had put
signature on it. In paragraph-21, she has deposed that her medical
examination could not be conducted.
10. On perusal of the entire materials available on the
record and on going through the views expressed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.316 of 2024(11) dt.23-03-2026
6/6
Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidences available on the
record, we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has
rightly reached to a conclusion that the prosecution in this case is
not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
11. Being an appellate court, we do not find any reason
much less any material on the record to take a view that the
accused-respondents are guilty of the offenses alleged. We keep in
mind that this is an appeal against acquittal and the principles
governing an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The
presumption of innocence has got multiplied at this stage.
12. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/anand/-
U T
Checking your session…