Patna High Court
Usha KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the trial court’s acquittal is upheld.
Summary
Usha Kumari appealed the acquittal of three accused under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alleging that they had assaulted her and her brother with a firearm on 20 June 2017. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce key witnesses, including the informant and the injured brother, and did not produce the FIR, rendering the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the limited evidence, noting that only two prosecution witnesses were examined and that the medical report was not corroborated by police. Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal as laid down by the Supreme Court in H.D. Sundara and Babu Sahebagouda cases, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a possible conclusion on the record and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
Issues considered
- The appeal under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is maintainable despite being an appeal against acquittal.
- Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to overturn the trial court’s acquittal under the principles of appeal against acquittal.
- The effect of the non‑production of the informant, the injured brother, and the FIR on the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 413
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 448, 504, 509/34, 590/34
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- appeal against acquittal
- acquittal
- evidence
- burden of proof
- Indian Penal Code
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
- Limitation Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.630 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3845 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2017 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Usha Kumari D/O Nityanand Singh R/O Village- Shiromani Tola, P.S-
Pabatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Boudhu Singh S/O Narayan Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani Tola,
P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
3. Narayan Singh S/O Late Bachchi Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani
Tola, P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
4. Kanhaiya Singh S/O Narayan Singh R/O Village- Nayagaon Shromani Tola,
P.S- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 16-02-2026
Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2025: -
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
has been filed for condonation of delay of 36 days occurred in
preferring this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when
the appellant saw the respondents No. 2 to 4 moving free in the
village, on enquiry she came to know that they have been
acquitted. Thereafter she went to the learned court below and after
enquiry she filed chirkut through her local counsel on 07.07.2013
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
2/9
and could procure the certified copy of the judgment 14.07.2023.
Therefore, the delay has occurred in preferring this appeal, which
were incidental and not because of any lapse on the part of the
appellant.
3. Considering the averments made in this application
and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the delay
of 36 days occurred in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. This application is allowed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 630 of 2025: -
5. With the consent of the parties, this appeal is taken up
for final hearing though it was listed under the heading ‘For
Orders (On Petition)’.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the
trial court records.
7. The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant under proviso to Section 413 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside the judgment of
acquittal dated 05.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge Vth court, Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned
trial court’), in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019, arising out of
Parbatta P.S. Case No. 215 of 2017. By the impugned judgment
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3/9
under appeal, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the
accused persons-the respondents no. 2 to 4, holding them not
guilty of the charges punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307,
448, 504, 590/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
8. On perusal of the trial court records, it appears that
the prosecution case is based on a written report of the informant
Usha Kumari, who alleged that on 20.06.2017 at about 04:00 PM,
the accused persons, who are her neighbours, abused her and when
she restrained them, they assaulted her with butt of firearm due to
which she sustained head injury. Thereafter, when her brother
Dhiraj Kumar came to her rescue, then the accused persons also
assaulted him with the butt of the firearm.
9. Based on the said written report, Parbatta P.S. Case
No. 215 of 2017 dated 20.06.2017 was registered against the
accused persons.
10. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet
was filed on 31.12.2017 against the accused persons for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 448, 307, 509/34 IPC.
11. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was
taken vide order dated 04.07.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 504,
448, 307, 509/34 IPC against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4.
It further appears that finding that the offences alleged against the
accused persons were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
4/9
the records were committed to the court of Sessions where it was
registered as Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 vide order dated
18.07.2019.
12. Charges were read over and explained to the accused
persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried and accordingly vide order dated 13.09.2019 charges were
framed under Sections 341, 323, 504, 448, 307, 509/34 IPC.
13. In course of trial out of seven charge-sheet
witnesses, only two witnesses, namely, Dr. Shweta Kumari (PW 1)
and Ramapati Singh (PW 2) could be examined. On behalf of the
prosecution only the injury report has been brought on record by
way of an exhibit and the same has been proved by PW 1.
14. The learned trial court has recorded in the impugned
judgment that the prosecution has not been able to produce the rest
of the prosecution witnesses including the informant and other
independent witnesses as also the IO of the case. As regards the
evidence of PW 2, the learned trial court has found that he is
admittedly an interested witness. The trial court has found that
both the parties are agnates. Due to lack of evidence on the record,
the trial court took a view that the prosecution has miserably failed
to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons.
15. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant
has made two fold submissions. It is submitted that Dr. Shweta
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
5/9
Kumari (PW 1) has stated that she was posted at Alexia Hospital,
Begusarai, on 28.07.2017 and on that day, she had examined the
patient named Dhiraj Kumar, who was brought by his relations to
her on 21.06.2017 at 04:30 PM with history of physical assault.
16. PW 1 has given the sight of the injuries as under: -
“Sight of injury-head 6.5cm anterio
posterior cut over the it. parietal region linear cut.
No evidence of laceration, end was not tapered. C.T.
head suggest non displaced fracture of parietal bone.
Multiple focal and patchy hypodense area involving
cortex and sub-cortical edema suggestive of
hemorrhagic contusions epidural hemorrhage in lt.
fronto parietal bone, subdural haematoma along the
tentorium and in the it temporal region.
Age of injury was less than 6 hours.
There was scalp haematoma surrounding
this linear cut.
Nature of injury grievous.”
17. The next submission of learned counsel for the
appellant is that PW 2. who is the uncle of the informant, has
supported the prosecution case, but the learned trial court has not
relied upon his evidence by giving a finding that he is an interested
witness. It is submitted that the evidence of an interested witness is
not to be discarded outrightly.
18. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has pointed out from the evidence of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
6/9
Doctor (PW 1) that in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, PW 1
has stated that the injured was brought to her by his relations,
police had not brought him and at the time of his medical
treatment there was no police with the injured. The Doctor has
further stated that she had herself informed the police whereafter
Begusarai Police had come. In paragraph 5, she has stated that her
hospital is a private hospital and the CT-Scan report was not
annexed with her injury report.
19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further
pointed out that so far as the evidence of PW 2 is concerned, he
has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of
occurrence he was inside his house and he was taking his
breakfast. The said witness is uncle of the informant. In paragraph
7 of his deposition, he has given all the description of the various
cases in which Usha Devi is a party. This witness though has not
given the number of cases against him, but he has admitted that in
connection with the cases lodged against him, he had gone to jail.
20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
the learned trial court has recorded in its order that despite
execution of bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, the
informant and other independent witnesses have not been brought.
This assertion of the trial court is not being contested by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
7/9
21. Having regard to the entire submissions recorded
hereinabove and the evidences which we have taken into
consideration, it is found that in this case neither the informant nor
Dhiraj Kumar, who is said to be the injured witness, has been
examined. The Doctor (PW 1) has categorically stated that Dhiraj
Kumar was brought in her private hospital and he was brought by
the relation not by the police and it was she who had informed the
Begusarai Police and, on such information, Begusarai Police had
arrived. It is, therefore, evident that after the occurrence, no step
was taken by the informant’s side to inform the police station with
regard to the occurrence. Non-appearance of the informant and
the injured witness as well as the other independent witnesses
would definitely prove fatal to the prosecution case. The
prosecution has not even exhibited the FIR of this case and there is
no otherwise contest with regard to the finding of the learned trial
court. The trial Court has categorically recorded that despite
service of bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant, the
prosecution witnesses have not been produced.
22. This is an appeal against acquittal and we are aware
of the principles governing an appeal against acquittal. The broad
principles on which an appeal against acquittal is to be considered
may be found in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
8/9
reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2024)
8 SCC 149. Paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) is being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
“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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.630 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
9/9
was that the guilt of the accused was proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible.”
23. Keeping in view the above proposition and the
evidences available on record, we find no reason to take irresistible
view against the accused persons. No interference is required with
the impugned Judgment.
24. The appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly,
dismissed.
25. Let the trial court’s record together with a copy of
this judgment 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 17.02.2026.
Transmission Date 17.02.2026.
Checking your session…