Patna High Court
ANJU KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, finding no basis to interfere with the order of acquittal.
Summary
An informant filed a complaint alleging that her father was kidnapped, murdered and his body concealed by several relatives in a property dispute. The FIR was lodged more than three years after the alleged incident, and the trial court found the prosecution witnesses unreliable, noting contradictions, hearsay, and the inability to establish the date of occurrence. Consequently, the trial court acquitted the accused under Sections 363, 364 and 34 of the IPC. The informant appealed the acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC. The High Court re‑appraised the evidence, affirmed the trial court’s assessment of its credibility, and held that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thus upholding the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court can overturn an acquittal when the evidence is deemed unreliable.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the contradictions in witness testimony preclude a conviction.
- Whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 192, 313, 378
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 363, 364
Subjects
- murder
- kidnapping
- property dispute
- acquittal
- appeal against acquittal
- evidentiary credibility
- delay in FIR
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.678 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2011 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
ANJU KUMARI D/o Bal Dev Sahni R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dindyal Sahani S/o Nagina Sahani R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
3. Rambabu Sahni S/o Dindyal Sahani R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
4. Vidya Sharma S/o Late Ram Paras Sharma R/o village- Manpur, P.S.-
Bheldi, District- Saran
5. Akhileshwar Sharma S/o Jugal Sharma R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
6. Raghunath Ray S/o Late Jodhi Roy R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
7. Navin Singh S/o Muktinath Singh R/o village- Manpur, P.S.- Bheldi,
District- Saran
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR)
Date : 22-01-2026
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 25.08.2021 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
2/12
Additional Sessions Judge VII, Chapra, Saran (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘learned trial court’), in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2014,
Protest Petition No. 2047 of 2012, Registration No. 10501 of 2014,
arising out of Bheldi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2011. By the impugned
judgment under appeal, the accused-respondent nos. 2 to 7, who
were facing trial for the charges under Sections 364/34 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), have been acquitted.
Prosecution Case
3. One Anju Devi (PW-7) filed a complaint case against
(1) Dindayal Sahani, (2) Rambabu Sahni, (3) Vidya Sharma, (4
Golu Sharma, (5) Brahmdeo Sharma, (6) Akhileshwar Singh, (7)
Radhunath Ray and (8) Navin Singh, before the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, on 05.07.2010, which
came to be registered as C. No. 1929 of 2010, alleging therein that
her mother Gudhni Devi was murdered by the accused persons
named in the petition for which her grandmother Kamla Devi, who
was an old lady, lodged a case alleging that all the accused persons
altogether allured her father Laldeo Sahni and got prepared a false
affidavit on 25.05.2007, which they produced before the I.O. and
got the case in their favour and from that time the accused persons
kept her father with them. It is alleged that the complainant was
aged about ten years and her younger brother was aged about eight
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
3/12
years. Save and except her grandmother, there was none to look
after her and her brother. The accused persons had their eyes on
the complainant's property and they anyhow wanted to grab her
land and house. It is also alleged that after producing the affidavit,
the accused persons had kept her father with them by alluring and
concealing him and after best efforts, the father of the complainant
could not be traced out. The complainant has firm belief that the
accused persons murdered her father after kidnapping and
concealed the dead body of her father. It is further alleged that
with an intention to grab the land and house of the complainant,
the accused persons kidnapped her father Laldev Sahani and killed
him and concealed his dead body. The complainant along with her
grandmother went to Bheldi police station and narrated the entire
story to In-charge police station who replied that the case will be
lodged after order of the court.
4. On the basis of the said complaint petition, the
learned Chief Judicial forwarded the same to the Officer In-charge,
Bheldi Police Station to institute an FIR, whereafter Bheldi P.S.
Case No. 118 of 2011, dated 08.12.2011 came to be registered
under Sections 363 and 364 IPC.
5. Upon investigation, the police submitted the final
form No. 160/2011 dated 31.12.2011 finding the case not true
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
4/12
against the above-named accused persons. By order dated
24.02.2012/04.04.2012, the learned CJM issued notice to the
complainant.
6. Thereafter, the complainant/informant filed a protest
petition challenging the final form submitted by the Investigating
Agency in Bheldi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2011 on 20.05.2012.
Though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final
report, however ordered for registration of the protest petition,
which came to be registered as complaint case No. 2047 of 2012.
Thereafter, under Section 192 Cr.P.C. the case was transferred to
the file of learned Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and further
proceeding, where enquiry Case No. 380 of 2012 was registered.
After enquiry, learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.05.2013
found prima facie case against the accused persons named in the
protest petition for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC and
directed for issuance of summons against them. Vide order dated
30.06.2014, the case was committed to the court of sessions and
transferred to the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra,
Saran, where Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2014/1 of 2014 was
registered.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
5/12
7. Learned trial court vide order dated 22.08.2014
finding Golu Sharma a juvenile split off his records and sent the
case for further proceeding before the Juvenile Justice Board.
8. On the same date, i.e., on 22.08.2014 also, the charges
were read over and explained to the rest of the accused persons in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Thereafter, the charges were framed under Section 364/34 IPC.
9. After the death of accused Bhramdeo Sharma, learned
trial court vide order dated 11.01.2020, struck off his name from
the records.
10. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as seven witnesses and exhibited one documentary evidence. The
names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Rajkali Devi
PW-2 Birendra Sahani
PW-3 Ramawadh Sahani
PW-4 Kameshwar Sharma
PW-5 Dipu Kumar
PW-6 Jayanti Sharma
PW-7 Anju Kumar (Informant)
List of Exhibit on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Certified Copy of the Order of
Cognizance
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
6/12
11. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent nos. 2 to 7
was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. They took a plea that
they are innocent. Defence also adduced oral and documentary
evidences, which are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Defence Witnesses
DW-1 Chandrika Ray
DW-2 Sanjeev Kumar Singh
DW-3 Ramesh Singh
DW-4 Ramnath Singh
List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence Witnesses
Exhibit ‘A/1’ Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Kamla Devi in Trial Case
No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'A/2' Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Anju Kumari in Trial Case
No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'A/3' Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Rajkali Devi in Trial Case
No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'A/4' Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Ramawadh Sahani in Trial
Case No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'A/5' Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Birendra Sahani in Trial
Case No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'A/6' Certified copy of deposition of
Witness Deepu Kumar in Trial
Case No. 35 of 2013
Exhibit 'B' Certified copy of the decision in
Sessions Trial No. 35/2013
Exhibit 'C' Certified copy of the cognizance
order in Trial No. 1062 of 2016
Exhibit 'D' Certified Copy of the final form in
Bheldi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2011
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
7/12
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
12. Learned trial court, having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties,
came to the conclusion, mainly on the count that the evidence led
by the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and inspire
confidence, particularly even the date of occurrence could not be
established during trial and there is no explanation for the
enormous delay of three years and two month in lodging of the
FIR from the date of occurrence and sharp contradictions
appearing in the evidence, the history of several ongoing
litigations between the parties for dispute over the property, that
the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against
respondent nos. 2 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubts and held them
not guilty of the charge framed against him. Accordingly, they
were acquitted of the charges framed under Section 364/34 IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant
13. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed
to appreciate the case and has wrongly discarded the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused-respondents
No. 2 to 7.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
8/12
Submissions on behalf of the State
14. On the other hand learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the learned trial court
has duly considered every aspect of the matter and rightly
acquitted the respondents. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment.
Consideration
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the materials on record.
16. PWs 2 and 3 are the hearsay witnesses, whereas PW
4 and 6 have deposed that they were witness in all the cases lodged
by Ramawadh Sahni against the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7
herein and thereby their evidence are not trustworthy.
17. So far as the evidence of PW 5, Dipu Kumar, is
concerned, he is the brother of the informant (PW 7), who claims
that he was eight years old at the time of the occurrence, which is
of the year 2007, and while deposing before the trial court he
claimed to be 11 years of age, thereby he was only three years old
at the time of occurrence, which renders his evidence not reliable.
18. So far as the evidence of the informant Anju Kumari
(PW 7) is concerned, she has deposed in her cross examination that
she filed the case in the court 10-15 days after the date of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
9/12
occurrence, whereas the complaint case was filed three years and
two months after the date of occurrence. PW 7 could not even tell
that whether her father was kidnapped in the year 2007 or in the
year 2010. She has denied that she and other witnesses have given
false evidence in the case lodged by Ramawadh Sahni against the
accused-respondents and that the present complaint case was
lodged at the behest of Ramawadh Sahni.
19. Similarly, so far as evidence of Rajkali Devi (PW 1),
who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, is concerned,
she has deposed to the extent that she had only gone to the police
station along with her brother (PW 2) to enquire about the victim.
PW 1 has admitted that her family and the family of respondents
were on litigating terms for dispute over property. She has also
deposed that a written information about missing of the victim was
given to the police station, which was written by PW 2, but no
such written information appears to have been produced on the
record in course of trial.
20. The defence witnesses, four in number, all of them
have deposed that there was dispute over property between
Ramawadh Sahani and the accused persons and litigations were
also going on, the complainant-informant has got the present false
case of kidnapping lodged at the behest of Ramawadh Sahani to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
10/12
pressurize them. DW 2 has even deposed that victim was mentally
unsound person though no such document in support thereof has
been brought on record.
21. From the materials on record and the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the evidence led by the prosecution
witnesses are not trustworthy and do not inspire the confidence of
the Court. The date of occurrence could not be established during
trial and there is no explanation for the enormous delay of three
years and two month in lodging of the FIR from the date of
occurrence. There are sharp contradictions appearing in the
evidence. There is a history of several ongoing litigation between
the parties for dispute over the property. The victim has not been
recovered. No perversity or infirmity is found in the impugned
judgment.
22. 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.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
11/12
“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.”
23. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.678 of 2021 dt.22-01-2026
12/12
24. This appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
25. 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 10.02.2026.
Transmission Date 10.02.2026.
Checking your session…