Patna High Court
ANITA SINHAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
An appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by Anita Sinha against the State of Bihar and two private respondents arising from a 2018 criminal case. The trial record contained no eye‑witness or any other witness to link the accused to the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the appellant acknowledged the complete absence of evidential support and questioned the propriety of maintaining the appeal. The Court observed that, in such circumstances, the appeal could not be sustained and should be dismissed with costs. The appellant then sought unconditional withdrawal of the appeal, which the State did not oppose. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the prosecution case lacks any eye‑witness or connecting witness.
- Whether the appellant may withdraw the appeal unconditionally.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
Subjects
- Section 372 appeal
- withdrawal of appeal
- lack of evidence
- criminal procedure
- acquittal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.846 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2018 Thana- CHHABILAPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Anita Sinha, Daughter Of Late Upendra Kumar @ Sanjay, Resident Of
Village - Kanchanpur, P.S. - Chhabilapur, District - Nalanda
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sarita Devi @ Mansa Mai, Wife Of Late Durga Prasad, Resident Of Village
- Badhauna, P.S. - Chhabilapur, District - Nalanda
3. Manish Mistry, Son Of Pradeep Mistry, Resident Of Village - Kanchanpur,
P.S. - Chhabilapur, District - Nalanda
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binit Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, Addl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant himself admits that in this case there is neither any eye
witness nor any witness connecting the chain of circumstances.
3. We fail to understand as to why, in such
circumstance, an appeal under Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred. We are of the view that the appeal is
required to be dismissed with cost but at this stage, learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.846 of 2024(5) dt.30-03-2026
2/2
counsel for the appellant submits that he may be allowed to
withdraw the appeal unconditionally.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has no objection to the same.
5. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.