Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Sk. Manso @ Mansoor on 25 June, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.13 of 1999
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-1987 Thana- DHORAIYA District- Banka
======================================================
The State of Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. SK. Manso @ Mansoor S/O Ulfat Mujour R/O Village- Jaipur, P.S-
Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka.
2. SK. Jahir S/O Ulfat Mujour R/O Village- Jaipur, P.S- Dhoraiya, Distt.-
Banka.
3. SK. Tahir S/O Ulfat Mujour R/O Village- Jaipur, P.S- Dhoraiya, Distt.-
Banka.
4. Md. Gulam Rasool @ SK Gulam Rasool S/O Ulfat Mujour R/O Village-
Jaipur, P.S- Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Respondent/s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 25-06-2025
The State has preferred the present appeal under Section
378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the judgment of
acquittal dated 17.05.1999 passed by the Court of learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 139 of
1992, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the 4
respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
2/25
2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as under:-
2.1. The informant Mosmat Bibi Jaibunissa has stated in
her fardbeyan recorded on 14.08.1987 at around 10:00 a.m. at
Government Hospital, Ghoraiya that, in the morning that day at
around 07:00 a.m., her son Sheikh Mansoor and Sheikh Nasir
along with ploughman Sheikh Ramjani were ploughing her field
situated at the south-west corner of village. Then, at that time,
Sheikh Manso of her village came with a gandasa, Sheikh Jahoor
with spear, Sheikh Rasool with a bana and Sheikh Tahir with a
lathi in their hands to the field abusing and told them to stop
ploughing, else they won’t let them go alive. On this, she said that
she was getting her field ploughed and will not stop ploughing. On
this, the above mentioned four accused persons surrounded them
and started assaulting. Her ploughman Sheikh Ramjani was hit
with a spear by Sheikh Jahir and by gandasa wielded by Sheikh
Mansi. Sheikh Rasool hit her on her head with bana and when her
son tried to save her, he was hit on his head by Sheikh Tahir with a
lathi. After this, when Ramjani fell down, all the four accused
persons started hitting him due to which he fell unconscious there.
Besides this, her two sons, Sheikh Ramjani and the above
mentioned ploughmen were beaten and injured by them. When
they raised alarm, nearby residents, namely Sheikh Haviv, Sheikh
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
3/25
Badruddin, Sheikh Nazimuddin etc. came running and all the four
accused persons ran away. Thereafter, she along with her other
companions brought Sheikh Ramjani on a cot to the Government
Hospital, Dhoraiya since Ramjani’s condition was very bad. The
above mentioned persons had beaten him with an intention to kill
him. Manso told in an abusive tone that he should not be spared
alive. She took Ramjani to Hospital where she was advised to take
him to B.M.C.H., Bhagalpur. She got him seated in a Maxi and
then took him to Bhagalpur. After that, she along with other
injured namely Md. Kalimuddin, Md. Shamim and her two sons
went for treatment where she gave her statement. The reason for
the incident is that the above mentioned accused persons claim the
field which she was ploughing to be theirs.
2.2. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency
carried out the investigation and, during the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of
the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter
filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1992.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
4/25
2.3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had
examined following 14 witnesses:-
PW-1 Md. Shahabuddin Ansari
PW-2 Md. Kalimuddin
PW-3 Nazbuddin @ Nazruddin
PW-4 Sheikh Nasir
PW-5 Md. Badruddin
PW-6 Md. Shamim Alam @ Md. Samim
PW-7 Nazma Khatoon
PW-8 Md. Mukhtar Alam
PW-9 Md. Gulam Rasul
PW-10 Md. Mansoor
PW-11 Bibi Jaibunnisa
PW-12 Dr. Haider Imam Ansari
PW-13 Md. Mansoor Khan
PW-14 Md. Saminuddin Ansari
2.4. Defence has also examined three witnesses, namely
D.W. 1 Dr. Zia-ur-Rahman, D.W. 2 Nasiruddin Khan and D.W. 3
Md. Muzib.
3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the
appellant-State.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant-
State referred the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and
thereafter mainly contended that, in the present case, there are
injured eye-witnesses who have supported the case of the
prosecution. Further, the medical evidence also corroborates the
version given by the injured eye-witnesses. Thus, the prosecution
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
5/25
has proved the case against the Respondents-accused beyond
reasonable doubt, despite which the Trial Court has recorded the
order of acquittal. The State has, therefore, preferred the present
acquittal appeal.
5. Learned A.P.P. further submits that, in the present
case, three persons sustained injuries and one person died. Three
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the
prosecution has examined PW-1, who is an independent witness.
He has also supported the case of the prosecution. However, the
Trial Court has committed grave error while discarding the
deposition given by the said witnesses. Learned A.P.P., therefore,
urged that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside and
thereby the Respondents-accused be convicted for the alleged
offences.
6. No one is present on behalf of the Respondents-
accused. However, as the present Government Appeal is pending
since the year 1999 and the incident in question is of the year
1987, we have taken up the case which has been listed for final
hearing.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned A.P.P. We have also perused the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and also perused the documentary evidence exhibited.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
6/25
8. At this stage, we would like to appreciate the relevant
extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence
before the Trial Court.
9. PW-1 Md. Shahabuddin Ansari has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on the day of incident, he heard a noise
from Jaibunnisa’s plot. He went to the field after hearing the noise.
Two ploughmen, namely Ramjani and Nasir, were ploughing the
field of Bibi Jaibunnisa. Zahoor, Mansoor and Tahir were there. He
did not see anyone else. Mansoor had a bana in his hand, Zahoor
and Tahir had a lathi in their hand. These people assaulted
Ramjani, Nasir, Kalim and Mansoor. No one went to save them
due to fear of getting hurt. The three accused persons had killed
Ramjani while assaulting him. Others were lightly assaulted.
Ramjani fell unconscious at the place of occurrence. He died on
the way when he was taken to Bhagalpur for treatment. First, he
was taken to Dhoraiya and then to Bhagalpur.
9.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is a
land dispute between both the parties. A Title Suit regarding the
same was going on in the chakbandi and Civil Court. The incident
occurred on the same land. He has denied the suggestion that the
accused Mansoor had filed a case against him for stealing paddy.
The accused Mansoor had filed a case against Ramjani for illegally
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
7/25
cutting paddy. Further, he had stated that he heard the noise that a
scuffle had taken place. He had heard the noise of assault. He even
saw the beating himself. When he went to the place of incident, he
saw a knife wound on the waist of Mansoor and a man who had
been hit lightly by a stick. Ramjani’s forehead was broken. He
stayed there for 15-20 minutes. He has further stated that there was
a fight between both the parties.
10. PW-2 Md. Kalimuddin has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on the day of incident, he was working
as a labourer in the fields of Most. Bibi Jaibunnisa. Sheikh
Ramjani was ploughing there. Sheikh Tahir, Sheikh Ghulam Rasul
and Sheikh Manso came there armed with weapons. Zahoor was
having a spear in his hand, Tahir had a lathi in his hand, Ghulam
Rasul had a bana and Sheikh Manso had a gandasa in their hands.
They told the widow that the field belongs to them and that she
should get away with the plough. Further, he has stated that Sheikh
Tahir fractured his right hand by hitting him with the lathi. He
sustained total five injuries. He was present at the time of scuffle.
When they started to flee, Sheikh Ramjani and Shamim and both
sons of the widow were assaulted. Ramjani fell down there after
getting assaulted with the weapons carried by the accused persons.
Upon hearing the noise and commotion, many villagers came
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
8/25
there. After this, the accused persons fled to their home. The
villagers took Ramjani to Dhoraiya on a cot. Ramjani was referred
to Bhagalpur. He died upon reaching there. He has further stated
that the accused persons had also filed a case and then the Police
arrested them at the Hospital. His treatment was done from jail at
Banka Hospital.
10.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his
statement was recorded before the Police during the investigation.
He had stated before the Police that Tahir fractured his hand by
hitting him with a lathi. He had also stated to the Police that he
had sustained 5 injuries. He had also stated to the Police that all
the four accused persons assaulted Ramjani badly due to which he
fell down. He cannot tell the khata and khesra of the plot which
was being ploughed. There is a dispute between both the parties
for the land upon which the incident took place. Both parties claim
over that land as their own. Apart from the disputed land, the
accused persons have around 4 bighas of land. He has further
stated that he saw lathi, spear and sword in the hands of the
accused persons. He later reiterated that sword was not there.
Further, in Para-14, he has stated that, on the day of incident, when
he was at the Hospital, the Police arrested him. The accused
Sheikh Jahir had also filed a case against them for the incident of
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
9/25
that day in which he was arrested. They remained in jail for 10-15
days. Mohd. Jahir and Mansoor have been implicated in a false
case of grievous assault lodged by them which has been committed
to the Court of Sessions.
11. PW-3 Nazbuddin @ Nazruddin has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, he went to the place of incident on
hearing the commotion. Ghulam Rasul had a bana in his hand,
Jahoor had a spear in his hand, Mansoor had gandasa in his hand
and Tahir had a lathi in his hand. The accused persons assaulted
Naseer, Kalim, Ramjani and Mansoor. He has further stated that
Ramjani was most grievously injured and he became unconscious.
His family members took him to Dhoraiya Hospital. The Doctors
referred him to Bhagalpur. He died on his way there.
11.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his
statement was recorded by the Police 8-10 days after the incident
in the village. In Para-12, he has stated that when he went to the
spot, he saw 3-4 persons in an injured condition. Kalim, Naseer,
Manso and Ramjani were injured. After he reached the place of
incident, many villagers also came there whose names he cannot
say. Daroga came after 8-10 days. He took his statement.
12. PW-4 Sheikh Nasir has stated in his examination-in-
chief that, on the day of incident, he was ploughing his field.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
10/25
Sheikh Jahir, Sheikh Tahir, Ghulam Rasul, Sheikh Mansoor came
there with weapons in their hands. Jahir had a spear, Tahir was
having a lathi, Ghulam Rasul had a bana and Mansoor had a
gandasa in their hands.
12.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
cannot tell the khata and khesra of the plot where the incident took
place. A case under Section 145 was filed against that land, which
they won. He has further stated that his mother does not plough.
She was standing at the boundary. In Para-16, he has stated that
Kalim was carrying a spade in his hand. His mother did not have a
spade in her hand. All the four accused persons came together only
once and all of them were carrying weapons in their hands. In
Para-18, he has stated that his mother was assaulted in 2-3 places.
Najma Khatoon and Shamim were also assaulted. Total 8 persons
were assaulted. Firstly, his mother got assaulted. He did not count
as to how many lathis his mother was assaulted with. She was not
assaulted with any sharp weapon. His mother did not faint. All the
accused persons together assaulted his mother. Further, in Para-19,
he has stated that he showed the blood-stained clothe to darogaji.
He did not seize them. The accused persons had falsely filed a
counter-case against them. Further, in Para-24, he has stated that
the Police did not seize the clothe of Ramjani. The Police sent
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
11/25
Ramjani to Bhagalpur. The Police arrested him at 10:00 or 10:30
hours. He has denied the suggestion that they went to assault the
accused persons by forming a group of assailants. He has also
denied the suggestion that they altogether assaulted the accused
person and that they are deposing falsely to avoid a counter-case.
13. PW-5 Md. Badruddin was produced for cross-
examination in which he has stated that he was deposing for the
first time in this case.
14. PW-6 Md. Shamim Alam @ Md. Samim has stated
in his examination-in-chief that, on the day of incident, he was
working in the field of Bibi Jaibunnisa. His father was ploughing
the field. Sheikh Zahir came to the field with a spear in his hand,
Sheikh Mansoor with gandasa, Gulam Rasul with bana and
Sheikh Tahir with lathi. They asked Jaibunnisa to stop the
ploughing on which she refused. On this, all the four accused
persons started assaulting his father. Sheikh Rasul and Tahir hit
him on the left side of his head and on his body. The accused also
assaulted Sheikh Kalim and broke his hand. The accused persons
also assaulted Sheikh Nasir, Sheikh Mansoor, Bibi Nazmuddin and
Jaibunnisa. His father got injured and fell on the ridge of the field
and fainted. The injured persons were taken to Dhoraiya Hospital
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
12/25
from where he was referred to Bhagalpur Hospital. His father died
on the way to Bhagalpur.
14.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had
recorded his statement before the Police 15 days after the incident
took place. On the same day, the accused Sheikh Zahir filed a
counter-case in which he is also an accused. He has further stated
that, apart from his father, all other injured persons were admitted
in the Dhoraiya Hospital. The Police did not record his statement
in the Hospital. He showed the blood-stained clothe to darogaji
which he took away. In Para-8, he has stated that there are 8
accused persons in the counter-case including both the sons of
Jaibunnisa and Kalim. His father was also made an accused in that
counter-case.
15. PW-7 Nazma Khatoon has stated in her examination-
in-chief that she gave her statement before the Police in connection
with this incident. She was also injured and had gone to the
hospital. She had received two injuries on her body. As soon as she
reached the place of incident, the accused persons started beating
her. She had further stated that the injured persons were taken to
the hospital.
16. PW-8 Md. Mukhtar Alam has stated in his
examination-in-chief that during the investigation of Ramjani’s
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
13/25
murder case, darogaji called him to the place of incident. Darogaji
seized blood-stained soil from there in front of him. Ghulam
Rasool was also present there at that time. Darogaji had also
prepared a Seizure List of the blood-stained soil on which he had
put his signature.
16.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Gulam
Rasul along with darogaji had come to the place of incident.
Darogaji collected about 250 gms. of blood-stained soil. Darogaji
prepared the Seizure List at the place of incident.
17. PW-9 Md. Gulam Rasul has stated that the Police
recorded his statement on the second day of the incident. He had
not seen any of the accused persons in an injured condition in the
hospital.
18. PW-10 Mansoor has stated in his examination-in-
chief that, on the day of incident, Ramjan @ Ramjani and Sheikh
Nasir were ploughing the field. At that time, Sheikh Mansoor,
Sheikh Gulam Rasool, Sheikh Tahir and Sheikh Zahir came to his
field and started abusing his mother Bibi Zaibunnisa. Gulam
Rasool and a bana in his hand, Mansoor had a rifle, Tahir had a
lathi and Zahir had a spear. The accused persons assaulted
Ramjani due to which he fell unconscious. He was beaten by
Gulam Rasool, Sheikh Tahir, Sheikh Mansoor and Sheikh Zahir,
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
14/25
who were brothers. There was a commotion during the assault. On
hearing the noise, many villagers gathered there and the accused
persons fled to their home. Darogaji had sent all the persons to
Dhoraiya Hospital where except Ramjani other injured persons got
treatment. Ramjani was referred to Bhagalpur. He died on his way
there.
18.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that a
counter-case has also been filed in this incident in which he is the
accused. He has further stated that he reached at the place of
incident at 06:45 a.m. with his brother Sheikh Nasir, mother Bibi
Zaibunnisa, Shamim and Kasim. He had been in the Dhoraiya
Hospital for three days. During these three days, he did not see any
accused persons in Dhoraiya Hospital. The Police arrested him
from Dhoraiya Hospital in connection with the counter-case and
sent him to Banka. Along with him, his brother Sheikh Nasir and
Sheikh Kalim were also arrested and sent to Banka. His mother
was treated in Dhoraiya Hospital. His mother is also an accused in
the counter-case.
19. PW-11 Bibi Jaibunnisa is the informant of this case.
She has stated in her examination-in-chief that on the day of
incident, at 07:00 a.m., she was at her field where Ramjani, Nasim
and others were ploughing. Apart from the three of them, Shakil,
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
15/25
Naseem and Mansoor, along with his wife, were there. At that
time, the accused Ghulam Rasul, Zahir, Tahir and Mansoor came
there. All the four accused are brothers. Ghulam Rasul had a bana,
Mansoor had a gandasa, Zahir had a spear and Tahir had a lathi in
their hands. The accused persons asked her to stop ploughing to
which she refused. On her refusal, the accused persons started
abusing and punching her and all the accused persons surrounded
Ramjani and started beating him. The accused assaulted all those
who were present there from her side. Ramjani tried to run away
but fell on the ridge of the western side of the field. Even after
Ramjani fell down, the accused persons kept hitting him. There
was a commotion during the fight on which Hanif, Nadim and
other villagers came. The accused persons fled from the place of
incident. Ramjani had fainted due to beating. All the injured
persons were taken to Dhoraiya Hospital. Ramjani was referred by
the Doctor for better treatment. The rest of the injured persons
were treated there. She gave her fardbeyan before the Police in the
Hospital itself. Darogaji recorded her statement and after recording
her statement, he read it out to her on which she put her thumb
impression.
19.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the
Police recorded her statement again after two months. In Para-4,
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
16/25
she had stated that the accused Mansoor had filed a false counter-
case. She was not arrested in any counter-case. She has denied the
suggestion that Ghulam Rasul was ill at the place of his posting
and he has been falsely implicated.
20. PW-12 Dr. Haider Imam Ansari has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 14.08.1987, he was posted as
Assistant Professor in the Forensic Medicine Department at J.N.
Medical College, Bhagalpur. On that day, at 04:30 p.m., he
conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Sk.
Ramjani and noted the following:-
“i. Echynosis present around the right eye
and rigor mortis present.
ii. Bandaged wound on Head on cutting it
there was a lacerated wound semi-circular in shape,
found on the forehead 21/2″ x ½” scalp deep.
iii. Lacerated wound on right side frontal
bone 2″ behind injury no. 2- longitudinal in shape, size
2″ x ¼” scalp deep.
iv. Lacerated wound on left perital bone in
size 11/2″ x ½” x scalp deep.
v. Lacerated wound on occipital region of
head- size 1″ x ½” in the right side.
vi. Lacerated wound on the right perital
region of head- size 21/2″ x ½” which was ‘Y’ shaped.
vii. Lacerated wound on the right perital
region of head behind injury no ‘6’- size on wound ¾”
x ¼”.
viii. Bruise on the right scapular region of
the back size- 11/4″ x ¾”.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
17/25
ix. Abrasion on the right clonicular region
size 1″ x ½”.
x. Bruise on the left side of chest size 1 1/4″
x ½”.
2. On dissection, there was fracture of 3rd
and 4th ribs on the left side, inter coastal areas found
infiltrated with blood, corresponding to external
wounds. On opening the scalp and the head,
hematoma, found almost all over, there was linear
fracture of right perital, temporal and occipital bones.
Blood clot present on the vault of the skull. There was
subdural hemorrhage, sub arachnoid hemorrhage found
in the perital and temporal areas of brain.
3. In the chest, lungs found congested,
Heart- both chambers contained blood. In the stomach,
dirty coloured fluid was found. Other viscera
congested. Bladder and colon found empty.
4. All the injuries were ante-mortem and
caused by hard-blunt substance such as lathi and bana.
Death was due to intra cranial hemorrhage and shock.
Time elapsed since Death- About 4 to 8 hours.”
21. PW-13 Md. Mansoor Khan is the investigating
officer of this case. He has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that
the fardbeyan is in the pen and signature of Shri L.K.Jha. The
fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit 3 and formal F.I.R. was marked
as Exhibit-4.
21.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does
not know the complete name of Shri L.K. Jha. He got the chance
to work with Shri L.K. Jha in Dhoraiya. He saw him doing the
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
18/25
paper work at Dhoraiya Police Station. The said fardbeyan and
formal F.I.R. were not written before him.
22. PW-14 Saminuddin Ansari has stated that Dr. D. Das
was the in-charge Medical Officer at Dhoraiya State Dispensary in
1987. He was transferred from there after three years. He does not
know as to where he went on his transfer. He had been treated by
him in 1987 and identifies his handwriting and signature. The three
injury reports are in the pen and signature of Shri D. Das, the then
Medical Officer of Dhoraiya State Dispensary.
22.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does
not have any slip or certificate of Dr. D. Das available with him.
The Injury Report was not prepared in front of him. He has no
knowledge of the information mentioned in the report.
23. Evidence of D.W. 1 Dr. Zia-ur-Rahman, D.W. 2
Nasiruddin Khan and D.W. 3 Md. Muzib need not be gone into as
they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In their cross-
examination also, they have not stated anything about the incident.
24. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned A.P.P. We have also perused the Trial Court record and
the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court. From the
evidence led by the prosecution, it transpires that the alleged
incident took place at 07:00 a.m. for which fardbeyan of the
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
19/25
informant was recorded at 10:00 a.m. If the fardbeyan of the
informant is carefully examined, it is revealed that it is a specific
case of the informant, who is an injured in the incident in question,
that the accused Sheikh Jahir inflicted injury with spear to Ramjani
and accused Sheikh Mansoor inflicted injury with gandasa to
Ramjani. Keeping in view the aforesaid version given by the
informant in the fardbeyan, if the deposition of PW-1 is carefully
examined, it is revealed that, in examination-in-chief, PW-1, who
is an independent witness, has stated that Mansoor had a bana in
his hand whereas Zahoor and Tahir were carrying lathi. No one
else was present and all the three persons assaulted Ramjani,
Nasir, Kalim and Mansoor. At this stage, if the deposition of PW-2
is carefully examined, it is his case that the accused Zahoor was
carrying a spear, Tahir was having a lathi in his hand whereas
Ghulam Rasul was carrying a bana. So far as Sheikh Mansoor is
concerned, he was having gandasa in his hand. So far as the
informant (PW-11) is concerned, she has stated the same thing
which has been deposed by PW-2. However, there are major
contradictions and improvement in the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses. At this stage, it is required to be observed
that it is a case of the informant in the fardbeyan that Sheikh Zahir
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
20/25
inflicted blow with spear to Ramjani whereas Sheikh Mansoor
gave blow with gandasa to the deceased.
24.1. Keeping in view the aforesaid case of the so-called
eye-witnesses, if the deposition given by PW-12 (Dr. Haider Imam
Ansari) is examined, it is revealed that in Para-4 of his deposition,
the said witness has specifically deposed that all the injuries were
ante mortem and were caused by hard and blunt substance such as
lathi and bana. We are, therefore, of the view that the medical
evidence does not support the version given by the so-called eye-
witnesses.
25. At this stage, it is also required to be observed that
the informant and the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the
manner in which the occurrence took place. From the deposition of
the prosecution witnesses, it has been revealed that in the incident
in question, the accused persons have also sustained injury and, in
fact, the counter-case has been filed by the accused side against the
informant and the other injured witnesses. However, it is required
to be observed at this stage that the prosecution has failed to bring
on record the nature of injuries sustained by the accused persons in
the incident in question. It is well settled that it is the duty of the
prosecution to explain the injury sustained by the accused.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
21/25
26. It is not in dispute that, in the present case, the
prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer, who
has carried out the investigation. The Trial Court has specifically
observed in the impugned judgment that because of the non-
examination of the Investigating Officer, in the present case,
serious prejudice has been caused to the defence. We are of the
view that the Trial Court is right in observing the said aspect. As
observed hereinabove, from the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that the accused persons have sustained
injury in the incident in question and, therefore, counter-case has
been filed. Some of the prosecution witnesses were arrested in
connection with the counter-case. Thus, because of the non-
examination of the Investigating Officer, in the present case, the
defence has lost the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating
Officer. We are also of the view that serious prejudice has been
caused to the defence because of the non-examination of the
Investigating Officer and which can be considered as fatal.
27. In the present case, even the prosecution has failed
to examine the Doctor, who had given the treatment to the injured
witnesses, and, in fact, the prosecution had examined PW-14 Md.
Saminuddin Ansari who has deposed before the Court that he had
taken the treatment in the year 1987 with the Doctor who was
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
22/25
posted at Dhoraiya State Dispensary in the year 1987. It is required
to be observed that PW-14 Md. Saminuddin Ansari had deposed
before the Court in the year 1999. Surprisingly, though the said
witness was not having any slip or certificate of Dr. D. Das who
had given treatment to him, the said witness identified the
handwriting and signature of the said Doctor. Further, the said
witness has also admitted that the injury report was not prepared in
front of him and he has no knowledge of the information
mentioned in the injury report signed by Dr. D. Das in favour of
the three injured persons.
28. It is also not in dispute that, in the present case, there
is no recovery or discovery of the weapons which have been
allegedly used in commission of the crime. Thus, there is no
recovery or discovery from the accused.
29. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 415. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the
principle regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Para-42 of
the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
23/25“42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding powers of the
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”, “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 emphasise 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 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 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 recorded by the trial court.”
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
24/25
30. In the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of
West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed, in Para-22, as under:-
“22. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] 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 trial court.”
31. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that Appellant Court must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.13 of 1999 dt.25-06-2025
25/25
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
Trial Court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not
disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court.
32. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We
have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court
while passing the impugned judgment . We are of the view that the
Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment
rendered by the Trial Court.
34. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 01.07.2025 Transmission Date 01.07.2025