Patna High Court
JAI NARAYAN YADAV @ JAINU YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appellate court's acquittal of the respondents is not perverse or illegal, and therefore the revision petition must be dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Jai Narayan Yadav, filed a criminal revision challenging the acquittal of five respondents by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, who were cleared of charges under Sections 323 and 420 IPC arising from a land‑sale dispute. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had assaulted him and his brother after demanding back the agreement paper, and that the trial court had convicted them, but the appellate court set aside those convictions. The High Court examined the evidentiary record and noted that only two witnesses were examined after charge, the complainant and key parties were not cross‑examined, and the deceased co‑defendant could not be examined, rendering the prosecution's case weak. It held that the appellate court’s reasoning was sound, not perverse, and that no illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranted interference. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the respondents on the basis of insufficient evidence and procedural lapses.
- Whether the failure to examine certain witnesses after charge constitutes a ground for revisional interference.
- Whether the appellate court's judgment is perverse or illegal, justifying a revision.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 420
Subjects
- criminal revision
- acquittal
- IPC 323
- IPC 420
- evidence
- cross‑examination
- procedural irregularity
- appellate court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.520 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1177 Year-1998 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Purnia
======================================================
JAI NARAYAN YADAV @ JAINU YADAV S/O Late Kewal Yadav R/O
Village- Chandpur, Bangala, P.S- Jankinagar, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/complainant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vishnu Dev S/O Late Tanuk Lal Yadav R/O Village- Chandpur, Bangala,
P.S- Jankinagar, Distt.- Purnea.
3. Anil Yadav S/O Late Sahdeo Yadav R/O Village- Chandpur, Bangala, P.S-
Jankinagar, Distt.- Purnea.
4. Ramdeo Yadav S/O Late Tanuk Lal Yadav R/O Village- Chandpur, Bangala,
P.S- Jankinagar, Distt.- Purnea.
5. Jai Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sahdeo Yadav R/O Village- Chandpur, Bangala,
P.S- Jankinagar, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Opposite Party/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
9 13-05-2026 The present criminal revision petition has been filed
for setting aside the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by
learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Criminal
Appeal No. 21 of 2016/ CIS No. 23 of 2016 (arising out of
Complaint Case No. 1177 of 1998) whereby and whereunder the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
2/8
concerned court has acquitted the private respondents/opposite
parties of the charges under Sections 323 and 420 of the IPC.
2. As per complaint case, complainant/ petitioner, his
five brothers and widow of deceased brother along with the
successors made partition with mutual consent and on the basis
of said mutual partition, they are possessing the land in their
respective share. It is further asserted in the complaint petition
that complainant's sister-in-law/Ashiya Devi needed money for
solemnization of marriage of her daughter and for that purpose
she agreed to sell out the land in share of her husband bearing
Khata No. 25, Khesra No. 3677, Rakba 9.5 decimal to the
complainant. It is further averred that an agreement was entered
into between the complainant and Ashiya Devi that out of the
total consideration money of Rs. 11,000/-, the complainant
would initially pay Rs. 8,000/- to Ashiya Devi as advance
money and the rest amount of Rs. 3,000/- and other
miscellaneous expenses would be paid at the time of execution
of registered deed. It is further averred that in pursuance of
aforesaid agreement, the complainant paid Rs. 8,000/- to Ashiya
Devi. It is further averred that in terms of agreement,
complainant made arrangement of rest amount of Rs. 3,000/-
and other miscellaneous expenses but when request was made
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
3/8
by the complainant to execute the registered deed, initially
Ashiya Devi took excuses on one pretext or other and lastly on
11.10.1998 beside Ashiya Devi, Vishnudeo Yadav, Ramdev
Yadav, Birendra Yadav, Anil Yadav and Jay Kumar Yadav, all
armed with fatal weapons, made intrusion into the house of the
complainant and demanded the agreement paper back and when
same was protested, all the accused persons assaulted the
complainant mercilessly after tying his hands. It is further
averred that when complainant's brother came to his rescue, he
was also assaulted by the accused persons. Upon hearing the
commotion, villagers came and saved the complainant and his
brother.
3. On the basis of complaint petition, complaint Case
No. 1177 of 1998 was filed. The complainant has produced six
witnesses viz. CW-1/ Geeta Devi, CW-2/ Hazari Yadav, CW-3/
Vidyanand Yadav, CW-4/ Jai Narayan Yadav @ Jainu Yadav
(complainant), CW-5/ Siya Ram Prasad Yadav and CW-6/ Md.
Yakub.
4. Defence has also adduced two witnesses viz. D.W.
1 Dilip Yadav and D.W. 2 Upendra Rai. They have stated that
complainant does not want to pay proper price of the land and
when land was not sold to him, he has filed the false complaint
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
4/8
case.
5. It is evident from the judgment dated 14.03.2016
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea in
Complaint Case No. 1177 of 1998, Trial No. 1187 of 2009 that
cognizance has been taken under Sections 323 and 420 of the
IPC and charge has also been framed against the private
respondents under the same section. Further statement of
accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has been
recorded.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has
submitted that vide judgment dated 14.03.2016, all the private
respondents have been convicted under Sections 323 and 420 of
the IPC and, accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 323 of the
IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years each
along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 420 of the IPC by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea. He further
submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Purnia set
aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and acquitted
all the private respondents vide impugned judgment dated
25.11.2022 without application of judicial mind and, hence, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
5/8
7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that,
prima facie, it appears that the present case is based upon the
agreement between the parties and the appellate court has
acquitted all the respondents of the charges under Sections-323
and 420 of IPC. He further submits that the appellate court has
recorded the reasoning that the complainant Jai Narayan Yadav
has not been examined after charge on account of which the
defence did not get opportunity to cross-examine him. Hence,
the evidentiary value of such witness has no significance in the
eye of law. It has also been quoted by the appellate court that
CW-2/ Hazari Yadav has not stated that respondents assaulted
him (Hazari Yadav), Ashiya Devi and the complainant. CW-
1/Gita Devi has also not stated anything regarding assault. He
further submits that, in the matter of acquittal, the revisional
court has limited jurisdiction to oversee whether any illegality,
irregularity or impropriety has been committed by the appellate
court and counsel of the petitioner has also failed to point out
any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned
judgment. Hence, judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate
court is justified and legal and no interference is required.
8. After going through the material available on
record, it is evident that the appellate court has recorded the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
6/8
finding that only two witnesses, namely Gita Devi and Hazari
Yadav have been examined and they have also been cross-
examined by the defence after charge and their evidence can be
analyzed in support of the complaint petition. CW-1 Gita Devi
has stated in the cross-examination after charge that she does
not know khata, khesra and boundary of the land in question,
hence, genesis of the dispute has not been supported by the said
witness. Further, CW-1 has not stated anything regarding
assault. CW-2/ Hazari Yadav is a hearsay witness as he has
stated that he heard that private respondents made intrusion into
the house of the complainant and assaulted him but during
cross-examination after charge CW-2 has not stated anything
regarding assault. Rest four witnesses, namely, Vidya Nand
Yadav, Jai Narayan Yadav (complainant), Siya Ram Prasad
Yadav and Md. Yakub have not been examined after charge, as a
result of which defence has not got opportunity to cross-
examine the aforesaid witnesses. Even the complainant has not
been cross-examined after charge. In this way, the contents of
allegation made by the complainant have no significance in the
eye of law. Further, Ashiya Devi has already died and she has
not been examined in the case. In this way, the very allegation
made in the complaint petition lacks authenticity as Ashiya Devi
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
7/8
is the person who had allegedly entered into the agreement to
execute sale deed and the story of complainant begins with the
initiation of Ekrarnama/Jarbayanama initiated by Ashiya Devi
which has not been proved in absence of examination of Ashiya
Devi who has died.
9. It is settled law that, unless there is a perverse
finding in the impugned order/judgment, no interference is
required. In the present case, the appellate court, while passing
the judgment of acquittal, has analyzed the evidence with the
sound reasoning. The contention of learned counsel for the State
is quite tenable and sustainable in the light of given facts and
circumstances of the case. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the
appellate court has taken a plausible view based on the evidence
available on the record. The view taken by the appellate court
cannot be held to be bad or perverse. Under such circumstances,
no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made
out.
10. In the result, the present criminal revision petition
preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2022
passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2016/ CIS No. 23 of 2016 (arising
out of Complaint Case No. 1177 of 1998) is dismissed at the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.520 of 2023(9) dt.13-05-2026
8/8
admission stage itself.
11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.