Patna High Court
KAUSHALYA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court's acquittal was correct as the evidence did not prove the guilt of the three accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The informant (X) alleged that on 10 June 2018 a group of accused, including Sanjay Ram, Vijay Ram and Surendra Ram, assaulted her family members, leading to the death of her husband. The trial court acquitted the three accused on charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 376/511 and 34 of the IPC, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the High Court re‑examined the oral and documentary evidence, noting contradictions in witness testimonies, the hearsay nature of several statements, and the medical report indicating injuries caused by a hard blunt object rather than the weapons alleged. The Court also considered the applicability of Section 34 (common intention) and found no corroborative evidence linking the three accused to the fatal assault. Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a possible conclusion and not erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence against Sanjay Ram, Vijay Ram and Surendra Ram establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the evidence.
- Whether Section 34 IPC (common intention) applies to the alleged offences.
- Whether the appellate court can overturn an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 378
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 376, 511
Subjects
- acquittal
- appeal against acquittal
- common intention
- reasonable doubt
- IPC sections 341 323 324 307 302 376 511 34
- CrPC Section 378
- high court judgment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.370 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
‘X’
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. SANJAY RAM S/O RAMJI RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola, P.S.-
Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.
3. VIJAY RAM S/O MOHAN RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola, P.S.-
Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.
4. SURANDRA RAM S/O MOHAN RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola,
P.S.- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR)
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned
District and Sessions, West Champaran, Bettiah, (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 09 of
2020, arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018. By the
impugned judgment under appeal, the accused-respondent nos. 2
to 4, who were facing trial for the charges under Sections 341, 323,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
2/17
324, 307, 302 and 376/511 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) have been acquitted.
Prosecution Case
3. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant (PW-
1), who is being referred to as ‘X’, Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231
of 2018 dated 11.06.2018, was registered at 12:35 PM, under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511 and 34 IPC against (1) Ajay
Ram, (2) Sanjay Ram, (3) Ramji Ram, (4) Surendra Ram, (5) Vijay
Ram (6) Mohan Ram, (7) Babunti Devi, (8) Pinki Devi, (9) Uma
Devi and (10) Lalmuni Devi. In her written report the informant
has alleged that on 10.06.2018, at 04:00 AM, while she had gone
to attend the call of the nature, accused Ajay Ram, caught her with
a view to outrage her modesty, however, somehow she could
manage to save herself and ran to her house and told about the
incident to her husband, father-in-law and other family members,
whereupon, at about 05:00 AM, her husband and other family
members went to the house of accused to ask about the incident,
the accused had not come to his house. It is further alleged that at
about 06:00 AM, when they saw Ajay Ram, her husband and
father-in-law asked him as to why he had committed such act,
upon which accused Ajay Ram and the aforementioned accused
persons became furious and started assaulting them. It is alleged
that accused Sanjay Ram (appellant No.1) and Ramji Ram caught
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
3/17
hold of her husband and accused Ajay Ram inflicted a farsa blow
on the head of her husband, as a result of which he sustained
injuries on his head and he fell down and became unconscious.
The other accused persons assaulted the father-in-law and the
brother-in-law of the informant by lathi, fatta, tenguli and farsa
causing injuries to them. Thereafter, the husband of the informant
was brought to Majhaulia hospital in unconscious state, from there
the Doctor referred to Bettiah. As the husband of the informant did
not become conscious at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah, in the evening,
he was referred to Patna, where he was getting treatment.
4. It appears from the record that as the husband of the
informant died during treatment at Patna, Section 302 IPC was
added.
5. On completion of the investigation, the police
submitted the charge-sheet on 27.09.2018 against four accused
persons, namely, Ajay Ram, Sanjay Ram, Vijay Ram and Surendra
Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324,
307, 376/511 and 302/34 IPC. Vide order dated 19.02.2019,
cognizance was taken against the accused persons under Section
341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511 and 302/34 IPC by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah and since the
offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions court, the case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
4/17
was committed to the court of Sessions by order dated 11.12.2019,
where Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020 was registered on 18.12.2019.
6. Charges were read over and explained to the accused
persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.02.2020, charges were
framed under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511, 302/34 IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
nine witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences. The
names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 ‘X’ (the informant)
PW-2 Jagdeo Ram
PW-3 Shyam Bahadur Thakur
PW-4 Raghunath Ram
PW-5 Prabhu Ram
PW-6 Bhola Ram
PW-7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar
PW-8 Ravindra Ram
PW-9 Rajmati Devi
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Fard-Beyan
Exhibit ‘2’ Endorsement of IO on the fard-
beyan
Exhibit ‘3’ Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘4’ Charge-sheet
Exhibit ‘5’ Postmortem report
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
5/17
8. Thereafter, the statement of the respondents no. 2 to 4
was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC on 23.11.2022. They
took a plea that they are innocent. However, no oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court, upon analyzing the evidences and
the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the postmortem
report of the deceased qua the charges levelled against the
respondents No. 2 to 4 and after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove the charges levelled against respondents no. 2 to 4 beyond
all reasonable doubts and held respondents nos. 2 to 4 not guilty of
the charge framed against them. Accordingly, they were acquitted
of the charges framed under Sections 341, 324, 307, 302 and
376/511 IPC and discharged them from the liabilities of their bail
bonds.
Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant
10. It is submitted that the learned trial court has not
properly appreciated the materials available on the record and the
evidence adduced during the course of trial. The learned trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record with
regard to the charges framed under Section 34 IPC as the accused
persons have committed the occurrence with common intention.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
6/17
The evidence of the independent eye-witness PW 2 (Jagdeo Ram)
has not been properly appreciated. Apart from the above grounds,
the acquittal of the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 is otherwise
also bad in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside.
Submissions on behalf of the State
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has submitted that the learned trial court has duly considered every
aspect of the matter thread bare and rightly acquitted the
respondents No. 2 to 4. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment.
Consideration
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered
the materials on record.
13. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
PWs 6, 8 and 9 are the hearsay witnesses, whereas PW 8 has been
declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.
14. In her examination-in-chief, the informant (‘X’) has
deposed that the occurrence took place nearly three years and nine
months ago, at 4’ O’clock in the morning. While she had gone to
attend the call of nature, accused Ajay Ram came and caught her
and removed her cloths with an intention to outrage her modesty,
however, she saved herself and rushed to her home. Thereafter, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
7/17
informant along with her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law
(bhasur) and other family members went to the house of accused
Ajay Ram to enquire about the incident at about 06:00 AM, the
accused persons started abusing them. On being protested by her
husband, accused Ramji Ram and Sanjay Ram caught her husband
and accused Ajay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the head of her
husband, smashing his head, as a result whereof the husband of the
informant fell down. When the father-in-law and the brother-in-
law of the informant went to save her husband, accused Sanjay
Ram cut both the hands of the father-in-law of the informant by
tangi. Accused Sanjay Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram
assaulted the brother-in-law of the informant by lathi and fatta,
causing injuries to him. The informant has also deposed that when
she came in rescue accused Uma Devi, Babunti Devi, Pinki Devi
and Lalmuni Devi all four of them assaulted her and her sister-in-
law (gotni) leading to eye issues to her sister-in-law. On hulla
Bharat Ram, Jagdeo Ram, Suresh Yadav, Raghunath Ram came
and took her husband and other injured to Majhaulia hospital, from
where her husband was referred to Bettiah and thereafter to Patna
and in course of treatment her husband died at Patna. She has
further deposed that on being back, Ramji Ram sharpening farsa
and tangi threatened that we have killed one, two more are to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
8/17
killed and pressurizing them to compromise the case, else she too
will be killed.
15. In her cross examination, she has mainly deposed
that she cannot say that who wrote the application. The occurrence
of assault lasted for half an hour. She cannot say that how many
people came and what colour of clothes they were wearing. She
has further deposed that she cannot say who inflicted how many
blows from lathi and farsa. She deposed that her bangles were
broken at the place of occurrence, which the police did not seize.
She did not hand over to the police her soiled clothes or the broken
bangles nor the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence
was given. She has deposed that she had told the police that her
husband sustained injuries by farsa. She did not give any petition
to the Superintendent of Police with regard to the investigation
against the Darogaji.
16. PW 2, Jagdeo Ram, has deposed in his examination-
in-chief that the occurrence took place at 06:00 AM, around three
years and nine months ago. He was at home and some verbal
altercation was going on, in the meanwhile, accused Ajay came
armed with farsa inflicted a blow on the head of Nagina Ram
(deceased), as a result whereof he fell down. When the brother and
father of the deceased came to his rescue, accused Sanjay inflicted
blow by tangi leading to cut on both the hands and on the body.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
9/17
Thereafter, the injured were taken to Majhaulia Hospital, from
where the Doctor referred Nagina Ram (deceased) to Bettiah and
thereafter to Patna, where during the course of treatment, the
deceased died after two days. He claimed to identify all the
accused persons.
17. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has deposed that he
cannot tell about the day and the date of the occurrence. The
occurrence lasted for ten minutes. Around 500 hundred people
gathered, amongst whom he can tell the name of a few. He was
standing at a distance of a few steps from the place of occurrence.
He denied that no such occurrence had taken place as he
explained and that he was doing so in connivance of the informant
to implicate them in a false case so as to grab the land and the
house of the accused persons.
18. PW 3, Shyam Bahadur Thakur, the Investigating
Officer, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
10.06.2018 he was posted as Sub Inspector of Police at Majhaulia
P.S.. On that date, the informant submitted an application in the
police station, which was endorsed to him by the S.H.O. Om
Prakash Chauhan, he identified the endorsement made by him,
which was marked as Exhibit-2. He identified the handwriting of
the Writer Constable, who had recorded the formal FIR, which was
marked as Exhibit-3. He has deposed that in course of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
10/17
investigation, he went to the place of occurrence and inspected it
on the same day. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the
informant, who told the name of the accused persons. PW 3 also
recorded the statement of the witnesses, who supported the
occurrence and told the name of all the accused persons. The post
mortem report was received on 14.09.2018. Having found the
occurrence to be true, he submitted the Charge-sheet, which he
identified and the same came to be marked as Exhibit-4. He has
deposed that since no injured came to him, he did not send them
for treatment.
19. In his cross-examination, PW 3 has said that he has
not got specialized training for investigation of cyber crime, rape,
attempt to rape and murder cases nor he is expert of cyber crime,
but has the experience of investigating other cases. He has deposed
that he did not seize any article or the weapons connected with the
occurrence nor produced any document in the Court. He denied
that the case was found false in course of supervision by the
Supervising Authority. He denied that his investigation was
misdirected, factually lacking, unscientific and full of infirmity
and that the same had been completed on table. He denied that no
such occurrence has been committed by the accused persons.
20. PW 4, Raghunath Ram, has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place around four
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
11/17
years ago at 06:00 AM in the morning. The warring parties used to
quarrel for a dispute over a piece of land. On the date of
occurrence, at 06:00 AM, there was altercation between the
parties, upon which when he went there, he saw that free fight by
lathi was going on. He came to know from the public that Nagina
Ram (deceased) and Surendra Ram have sustained injuries. The
deceased was taken to Hospital on a tempo, then he came to know
that he had been taken to Patna for treatment and after two days he
came to know that deceased had died at Patna.
21. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he had
come to depose in the case on being asked by the informant. He
knows the accused persons since they are the co-villagers. He
could not see the injuries of the injured since they had fallen.
22. PW 5, Prabhu Ram, an injured witness, has deposed
in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place around
four years ago at 04:00 AM in the morning. He was at his home.
The informant (‘X’) had gone out. Accused Ajay Ram molested
her, whereafter informant came home and explained everything to
them. When they went to Ajay Ram to enquire about it, accused
Surendra Ram and Ramji Ram thrashed Nagina Ram (deceased)
and started pressing his neck. Accused Ajay Ram armed with
kulhari and accused Vijay Ram armed with farsa came, and
accused Ajay Ram inflicted kulhari blow on the head of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
12/17
deceased. Accused Vijay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the shoulder
of the deceased behind the neck. Thereafter, all the accused
persons started assaulting the deceased and the informant by lathi.
Ramji Ram assaulted him by lathi on his back. Nagina Ram
(deceased) became unconscious and was taken to Majhaulia
Hospital, from there he was referred to Bettiah and then to Patna,
where he died during the course of treatment. He claimed to
identify all the accused.
23. In his cross-examination, PW 5 deposed that injuries
sustained by him was examined by the police and he was treated at
Majhaulia Hospital. The occurrence lasted for about 15-20 minutes
and around two hundred persons were present at the place of
occurrence and name, parentage and address of all of them he
cannot tell, but for a few people. He vividly described about of the
weapon (kulhari). He has deposed that police did not seize the
bloodstained soil, clothes or weapon in his presence. He deposed
that lavatory has not been provided by the Government in his
house nor there is any either inside or outside his house and the
female members in whose house lavatory is not there, they use to
go outside to defecate. He has deposed that he sustained injuries
by lathi and not by farsa-kulhari. He denied that since he is the
brother of the deceased, therefore, he is giving false evidence and
the accused persons are innocent. He also denied that no such
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
13/17
occurrence took place and the accused persons have been
implicated in a false case.
24. PW 7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, is the doctor who
conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased Nagina Ram. Following ante mortem injuries were found
on post mortem examination and dissection: -
“(i) Stitch wound – 4 cm length
present over mid portion of frontal area, 11
cm. From nasal bridge.
(ii) There was contusion of scalp,
which present of extra vessel blood and blood
clots underneath of scalp. Both frontal and
both parietal area dark reddish in colour. On
incision with linear fracture on both side
frontal bone-right side 0.5 cm and left side 3.5
cm corresponding tonal suture was separate.
(iii) There was 5cm x 1 cm common-
united fracture of right side parieto temporal
bone V shaped and also linear fracture on left
temporal parietal bone of skull 8 cm in length.
There was 6 cm x 4 cm extra dural haemotoma
present both side cerebral surface and also
blood clot present on base of brain.
Opinion
(i) Cause of death was cranio
cerebral damage resulting from head injury
caused by hard and blunt force impact.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
14/17
(ii) Time since death – within 24
hours (approximate) prior to postmortem
examination.”
25. In his cross-examination, PW 7 has deposed that
identity card of the deceased was not produced at the time of post
mortem. Such injuries can be caused by stone, brick or hard and
blunt substance. He has opined that keeping in view the nature of
injuries, the same can be caused by hard and blunt long and heavy
object or due to falling of any heavy object like brick, wood. No
injury caused by any sharp edged weapon was found on the person
of the deceased.
26. It appears that the learned trial court having
considered the materials available on the record and the evidence
adduced, both oral and documentary, arrived at the conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the place, manner, the date and
time of the occurrence as there is contradiction in the account of
the witnesses. Though PW 1(the informant), PW 2 (Jagdeo Ram)
and PW 5 (Prabhu Ram) had in unison supported the case of the
prosecution that accused Ajay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the
head of Nagina Ram (deceased) causing injuries, the same is not
corroborated by the medical evidence as the injuries of fracture of
parietal temporal and left temporal region has been found to have
been caused by a hard and blunt substance. The learned trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
15/17
has categorically recorded that so far as the evidence with regard
to complicity of respondents No. 2 to 4 in the occurrence are
concerned, the same are contradictory, misleading and not clear
and no corroborative evidence has been produced with regard to
the alleged injuries caused by respondents No. 2 to 4 to the father-
in-law of the informant. The learned trial court has while acquitted
the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges levelled against them, it
has convicted accused Ajay Ram for the offence under Sections
354 and 302 IPC.
27. In view of the materials on record, the discussions
aforementioned and the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses,
we are of the view that no perversity or infirmity persists in the
impugned judgment with respect to the respondents No. 2 to 4. No
interference with the judgment acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 is
required.
28. We are reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein their Lordships have laid
down the principles governing an appeal against acquittal.
Paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra)
is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
16/17
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon
to consider the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment1 rendered by the High
Court while deciding an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”).
The principles which govern the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378
CrPC can be summarized as follows:
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 re-appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-
appreciating 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.”
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) has categorically held that the appellate court can
1. Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026
17/17
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.
In the present case, no other conclusion is possible, other than the
one taken by the learned trial court.
30. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
31. This appeal has no merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.
32. It is made clear that our consideration is limited to
the evidences as against respondents No. 2 to 4. The appreciation
and observation of this Court shall not cause any prejudice to the
case of Ajay Ram.
33. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court’s record be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2026.
Transmission Date 25.02.2026.
Checking your session…