Patna High Court
Munni Devi vs The State Of Bihar Through The District … on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1275 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2020 Thana- GURUA District- Gaya
======================================================
Munni Devi Wife of Sarjun Chaudhary Resident of Village - Auradih, P.S. -
Gurua, District - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gaya, District - Gaya
Bihar
2. Akhilesh Chaudhary Son of Arjun Chaudhary Resident of Village - Auradih,
P.S. - Gurua, District - Gaya
3. Arjun Chaudhary Son of Late Tilak Chaudhary Resident of Village -
Auradih, P.S. - Gurua, District - Gaya
4. Pratima Kumari Daughter of Arjun Chaudhary Resident of Village -
Auradih, P.S. - Gurua, District - Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 17-06-2025
The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant/original informant under Section 372 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.09.2024 rendered by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Sherghati,
Gaya in Sessions Trial No.138/2022/950/2023, arising out of
Gurua P.S. Case No.178/2020, whereby the respondents-accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
2/19
have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
2. Heard Mr. Mahendra Thakur, learned Advocate
for the appellant-informant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad,
learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3. Mr. Mahendra Thakur, learned Advocate for the
appellant-informant would mainly submit that the FIR being
Gurua P.S. Case No.178/2020 was registered under Sections
341/323/302/504
/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch Practices Act against the
present respondents-accused. It has been mainly alleged by the
informant in the FIR that on 03.08.2020, at about 04:15 p.m.,
her daughter Nirmala Kumar was returning from a Devi temple
after offering her prayer. Pratima Kumari of her village started
abusing her daughter. When her daughter forbade Pratima
Kumari to do so, she caught hold of her hair and pulled her
down. Till then, Arjun Choudhary, Akhilesh Choudhary and
Phulesh Devi came and started assaulting her daughter. When
the informant and her husband came there after hearing the
alarm, Phulesh Devi caught her, pulled her down and started
assaulting her on her breast by leg and assaulted her on her ear
by means of iron rod due to which the ear of the informant was
torn and started bleeding. Arjun Choudhary and his son
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
3/19Akhilesh Choudhary assaulted her husband on his head by
means of iron rod due to which her husband fell down there and
started vomiting blood and became unconscious. Thereafter the
accused persons fled away from there. The local people
gathered there after hearing alarm and brought her husband to
Gaya Hospital from where he was referred to Blue Diamond
Hospital, Patna where her husband died during the course of
treatment.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant-informant
thereafter submits that after registration of the FIR, the
Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and during the
course of investigation, he had recorded statements of witnesses
and collected the relevant evidence and thereafter filed charge-
sheet against the respondents-accused. As the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned
Magistrate committed the same to the concerned Sessions
Court.
5. Mr. Thakur, further submits that before the Trial
Court, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and also
produced documentary evidence. Further statement of the
accused-persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of the
Code. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
4/19
impugned judgment of acquittal whereby all the respondents-
accused have been acquitted. The appellant-informant has,
therefore, preferred the present appeal.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant-informant has
mainly contended that there are two injured eye-witnesses to the
incident in question and they have fully supported the case of
the prosecution. It is further submitted that the doctor, PW-8,
who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the
deceased, has also supported the version given by the eye-
witnesses. Thus, prosecution has proved the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the Trial Court
has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal and, therefore,
the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant-informant
further submits that the Trial Court has mainly placed reliance
upon the deposition given by PW-3, mother of the deceased,
who did not support the case of the prosecution because of the
threats given by the accused. Learned counsel, therefore, urged
that the Trial Court has committed grave error while passing the
impugned judgment of acquittal. He, therefore, urged that the
present appeal be admitted and thereafter the impugned
judgment be set aside and thereby the respondents-accused be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
5/19
convicted.
8. On the other hand, learned APP has fairly
submitted that the Trial Court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and, therefore, in
the present acquittal appeal filed by the informant, no
interference is required. It is also submitted that State has not
preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment of
acquittal.
9. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and the
Respondent-State. At the outset, it is required to be observed
that pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by this Court,
learned counsel for the appellant has supplied the copy of the
deposition of the witnesses and the other documentary evidence
upon which he has placed reliance. We have gone through the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence led by
the prosecution.
10. From the material placed before us, it would
reveal that fardbeyan of Munni Devi, PW-2, who is wife of the
deceased, came to be recorded by S.I. Akhileshwar Mishra of
Agamkuan P.S., District Patna on 05.08.2020, at about 14:10
p.m. in Blue Diamond Hospital, Patna. From the fardbeyan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
6/19
given by the informant, it transpires that the incident took place
on 03.08.2020, at about 04:15 p.m. for which fardbeyan was
given by the informant on 05.08.2020. It would further reveal
from the record that after recording the fardbeyan of the
informant, the concerned police officer sent the same to Gurua
Police Station. The said fardbeyan was recorded as formal FIR
on 12.08.2020, at 11:00 a.m. Thus, from the aforesaid events, it
is revealed that there is delay in lodging the FIR and there is
delay in lodging the formal FIR. No explanation has been
rendered by the prosecution with regard to the same.
11. PW-1, Nirmala Kumari, who is daughter of the
informant as well as the deceased, has mainly deposed in her
examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 03.08.2020,
at 04:00 p.m. She was returning from a temple after offering her
prayer. Pratima Kumari was standing on the way and telling that
her mother is a dain (witch) and she obstructs fixing of her
marriage. When PW-1 forbade her to do so, she caught hold of
her hair. When her mother and father came, Phulesh Devi pulled
her mother down, sat on her breast and started assaulting.
Phulesh Devi assaulted her mother by means of a rod on her ear
due to which blood started oozing out and her mother became
unconscious. Arjun Choudhary and Akhilesh Choudhary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
7/19
assaulted her father by means of rod in the back portion of his
head due to which her father sustained injury and fell down.
When the accused persons saw that her father has died, they fled
away. Her father was brought to Sherghati for treatment from
where he was firstly referred to Gaya and from there he was
referred to Patna. Her father was treated in Blue Diamond
Hospital for two days and thereafter her father died. The said
witness identifies Pratima Kumari, Arjun Choudhary and
Akhilesh Choudhary in Court.
11.1. The said witness has stated in her cross-
examination that she did not lose consciousness due to the
assault. When she was being assaulted, the people of the village
were present there. Sudama Choudhary, Pradeep Choudhary and
Vinod Yadav were present there. They did not stop the quarrel.
Pratima Kumari caught hold of her hair and she did not fall on
the ground. She got injuries on her temple and back. The said
witness has denied the suggestion that she implicated Arjun
Choudhary and Akhilesh Choudhary in a false case to grab their
lands and that no such occurrence took place and she gave false
testimony.
12. PW-2, Munni Devi is the informant of the case
and she has deposed in her examination-in-chief that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
8/19
occurrence took place on 03.08.2020, at 04:00 p.m. Her
daughter was returning from a temple after offering prayer.
Pratima Devi was abusing her daughter and told that her mother
is a dain (witch) and she obstructed her marriage. When her
daughter forbade Pratima Devi to do so, she caught hold of her
hair and pulled her down. Thereafter she and her husband went
there after hearing alarm. In the meantime, Akhilesh Choudhary,
Arjun Choudhary and Phulesh Devi reached there. When she
forbade them to quarrel, Phulesh Devi sat on her breast and
assaulted her with a rod on her ear due to which she sustained
injury in her ear and blood started oozing out. Arjun Choudhary
and Akhilesh Choudhary assaulted her husband by means of rod
on his head due to which her husband sustained injury and fell
down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away.
Her husband was brought firstly to Sherghati for treatment from
where he was referred to Gaya and after that referred to Patna.
Her husband was treated in Blue Diamond Hospital, Patna and
after two days her husband died. She gave her statement before
the police in Patna. She identifies accused Pratima Devi,
Akhilesh Choudhary and Arjun Choudhary in court.
12.1. The said witness has stated in her cross-
examination that Phuleshwari Devi pulled her down after
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
9/19
catching hold of her hair and sat on her breast. She did not
sustain any injury in her breast, rather she sustained injury in her
ear. Her husband was in the business of selling toddy. Her
husband was lying near the place where she was thrown. She
was also treated in Sherghati with her husband. At the time of
quarrel, Sudam Choudhary, Mahendra Choudhary, Tetri Devi,
Chanarik Choudhary etc. came there within 2-5 minutes. There
was dispute with the family of the accused since 2-3 years
before the occurrence. She did not complain earlier either before
the police or before the Panchayat regarding her being called a
dain (witch). It is further stated by this witness in her cross-
examination that she reached Sherghati Hospital at 05:00-06:00
hours. She was treated in Sherghati. She went to Dr. Amresh
Khan in Sherghati. Her husband was examined by a doctor. She
cannot say who treated her husband in Blue Diamond Hospital.
The said witness has denied the suggestion that no such
occurrence took place and that hot talk was going on between
her and her husband and her husband fell down on the ground
and sustained injury. She has also denied the suggestion that a
false case was lodged against the accused to grab their lands.
13. PW-3, Tetri Devi has deposed in her
examination-in-chief that Sarjun Choudhary was her son who
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
10/19
was murdered three years ago. Her son fell after consuming
liquor and due to fall he died. The accused persons did not kill
her son. Accused Akhilesh Choudhary and Pratima Kumari are
her grandson and granddaughter. The police had recorded her
statement. She gave the same statement before the police.
13.1. The said witness has stated in her cross-
examination that Sarjun fell in a drunken state and died.
14. The depositions of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 need
not be gone into in detail as they are not the eye-witnesses of the
occurrence.
15. PW-7, Diwakar Kumar Vishwakarma is the
Investigating Officer who has carried out the investigation.
From his deposition, it transpires that on 12.08.2020, he was
posted as S.H.O. at Gurua police station. He received the
fardbeyan given by Munni Devi (informant). The said
fardbeyan was received from Patna on the basis of which he
registered the formal FIR. It has been stated by the said witness
that he went to the place of occurrence after registration of the
formal FIR and thereafter recorded the statement of the
witnesses and filed the charge-sheet against the concerned
accused persons. However, during cross-examination, the said
witness has specifically admitted that the fardbeyan was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
11/19
recorded on 05.08.2020 which he received on 12.08.2020.
During the period between 03.08.2020 to 12.08.2020, he did not
receive any written information with regard to the incident
which took place nor he received any oral and telephonic
information with regard to the same. He has further admitted
that he did not recover or discover the rod which was alleged to
have been used in committing the crime. He did not find any
blood at the place of occurrence. It is further stated by this
witness in his cross-examination that Nirmala Kumari told him
that she was returning after offering her prayer and her aunt and
cousin sister started abusing her. There is no mention regarding
the fact that the incident took place at 04:00 p.m. Nirmala and
her mother were not treated. He did not mention this fact.
16. PW-8, Dr. Radha Raman Singh is the doctor
who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on
05.08.2020, he was posted as Associate Professor at NMC Patna
and on the same day he conducted post mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased and found the following:
“2. On observation:- Rigor mortis present all over,
Eyes congested, Built-Average.
3. External Examination:-
1. Swelling on right temporal region of size 8cms x
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
12/195cms.
4. Internal Examination:-
1. Haemetoma was found on whole of scalp with
bruise of muscles of perieto temporal region in both sides.
Linear fracture was found on both sides of perito temporal
region at different level. These fractures were transversely
situated. Intra cranial hemorrhage was found.
2. All viscera were congested, right chambers of
heart were full. Stomach content was about 100ml blackish
digested food stuffs, bladder was empty and trachea was
congested.
3. Opinion
1. All injuries were antemortem in nature.
2. Weapon used- Hard blunt object.
3. Cause of death:- Head injury.
4. Time since death:- 02 hours to 12 hours.”
16.1. The said witness has stated in his cross-
examination that rigor mortis was in the first stage. Rigor mortis
starts generally one to two hours after death. It is generally
found upto 36 hours of death. Stage of rigor mortis is not
mentioned in post mortem report. The length of injury is
mentioned in post mortem report. Colour of external injuries
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
13/19
were not mentioned in post mortem report. In stomach digested
food was found. So it cannot be said about type of the food
taken by the deceased. No any foreign object was found in any
injury either in internal or external. He has not mentioned it in
his report. He has not found any sign of treatment.
17. From the aforesaid deposition given by the
prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the prosecution has
projected PW-1 and PW-2 as eye-witnesses. As per their
deposition, both the aforesaid witnesses sustained injuries in the
incident in question. However, it is relevant to observe that the
injury certificates of the said witnesses have not been produced
before the court. The prosecution has even failed to examine the
doctor who had given the treatment to PW-1 and PW-2. It
further transpires from the record that as per the case of PW-2,
the informant, the incident took place at 04:15 p.m. on
03.08.2020. However, though the informant as well as PW-1
were present with the deceased initially in the government
hospital and thereafter in the private hospital, information has
not been given to the police with regard to the incident in
question and only after the death of the deceased on 05.08.2020,
fardbeyan of the informant came to be recorded. Thus, there is a
gross delay in lodging the FIR for which no plausible
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
14/19
explanation has been given by the informant. It is also clear
from the record that though fardbeyan of the informant was
recorded by S.I. Akhileshwar Mishra of Agamkuan police
station on 05.08.2020, the said police officer has not been
examined by the prosecution. Further, the fardbeyan of the
informant was sent by the said officer on 05.08.2020, the same
has been received by Gurua police station on 12.08.2020. Thus,
formal FIR at Gurua police station was recorded on 12.08.2020.
Thus, there are serious lapses on the part of the concerned police
authorities.
18. It is also revealed from the deposition given by
PW-7, the Investigating Officer, that he has commenced the
investigation only after registration of the formal FIR, i.e., on
12.08.2020. He has specifically admitted that rod was not
recovered or discovered. He did not find any blood at the place
of occurrence.
19. It is important to observe at this stage that PW-
3, who is mother of the deceased, has specifically stated in her
examination-in-chief that her son consumed liquor and
thereafter fell down, as a result of which he died. The accused
have not killed her son. It is important to observe that the said
witness is not declared hostile and, therefore, the deposition
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
15/19
given by the said witness is required to be considered as it is.
20. It is pertinent to note that we are dealing with
the acquittal appeal filed by the informant. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State
of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, has observed in
paragraph no. 42 as under:-
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles
regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate Court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and
compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’,
‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
16/19‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an
appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to
emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the Court to review the evidence and to come to its
own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the accused
having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
17/19recorded by the trial court.”
21. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605, has observed in paragraph no. 22
as under:-
“22. Recently, a three-Judges Bench of
this Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar has considered various earlier judgments on
the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It
held that there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence
that is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he
is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
court. It has been further held that if two
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should
not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
18/19
trial court.”
22. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that there is double
presumption in favour of the accused, when the order of
acquittal has been accorded by the Trial Court: Firstly, the
presumption of innocence that is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law; Secondly, the accused
having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court.
Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the
present case, as discussed herein-above, are carefully examined,
we are of the view that while passing the impugned order of
acquittal, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error, as
the prosecution has failed to prove the case against
respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1275 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
19/19
inclined to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, this appeal
is dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.06.2025 Transmission Date 23.06.2025