Patna High Court
Madan Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.84 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2001 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Madan Ram, S/o Late Ram Sharan Ram, resident of Village- Ratnauli, Tole-
Lalpur, P.S. -Maniyari, Dist. Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hriday Ram, R/o Village- Kinaru, P.S.- Maniyari, Dist. Muzaffarpur.
3. Naresh Ram, S/o Jamun Ram, R/o Village- Ratnauli, P.S.- Maniyari, Dist.
Muzaffarpur.
4. Rajendra Ram, S/o Late Shivnandan Ram, R/o Village- Ratnauli, P.S.-
Maniyari, Dist. Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 07-08-2025
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred for
setting aside the Judgment dated 27.09.2023 (hereinafter referred
to as the impugned Judgment), passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XI, Muzaffarpur (in short the 'trial court'), in
Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2002, arising out of Maniyari P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
2/11
No. 35 of 2001, dated 04.05.2001, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302,201/34 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
Madan Ram (P.W.-5), who alleged that on 03.05.2001, his aunt
Gulpatiya Devi was stung by a Scorpion and informant's mother
along with other family members had taken her for treatment.
According to informant, despite search of his younger brother
Sajjan Ram (deceased), he could not be found. The informant
remained under impression that his brother must have gone to see
a dance performance. His brother did not return even at the dinner
time and he could not be found in the village, then informant came
to know in the morning from some people, who had gone to attend
the nature's call, that a person's dead body is lying in the Maize
filed of Md. Ayub. The informant along with other people of his
locality went there and found that it was the dead body of his
brother Sajjan Ram. The informant said that the Maize crops
nearby were damaged and it appeared that some fighting had taken
place there. The torch and slippers were lying there. There were
black mark on the neck of his brother, due to which it appeared
that somebody had strangulated him. Blood was coming out from
the right ear. The informant expressed his apprehension that at
least 3-4 persons may be involved in the brutal murder of his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
3/11
brother. As regards the motive behind the killing of his brother, the
informant did not disclose any motive. According to him, his
brother was simple in nature. He had no enmity with anyone.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.-9),
Maniyari P.S. case No. 35 of 2001 was registered. On completion
of investigation, Police submitted a charge-sheet, whereupon the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections
302,201/34 of the I.P.C.
5. It is worth mentioning that during investigation, the
Investigating Officer did not find sufficient materials to proceed
against Naresh Ram, therefore, he was not proceeded against.
6. After commitment of the records, step for framing of
charges were taken before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzaffarpur. Charges were explained to the respondent nos. 2 and
4, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a
Sessions Trial case was registered.
7. It, however, appears from the records that during trial,
the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The said application was allowed and
Naresh Ram (respondent no. 3) was summoned to face the trial.
Subsequently, the charges were framed against Naresh Ram on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
4/11
17.06.2015
for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of
the I.P.C.
8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They pleaded innocence. The
defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
9. Upon perusal of the records and analysis of the
evidences available on the record, the learned trial court found that
there is no eye witness of the occurrence. None of the witnesses
has said that they had last seen the deceased with the accused
persons. The trial court has noticed that the entire prosecution case
had been developed on the theory of last seen, but the prosecution
has miserably failed to not only prove that the deceased was last
seen in the company of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has
in fact failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant.
The trial court has taken a view that the last seen evidence cannot
be the sole basis of conviction. Finally, by the impugned
Judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the
accused/appellant upon the charges.
10. Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted before this Court that in this case there is
no eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, the most
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
5/11
material witness of this case are the informant Madan Ram (P.W.-
9) and Sitabiya Devi (PW.-10). It is submitted that the learned trial
court seems to have failed to analyse the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses properly.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has defended the impugned Judgment. It is
submitted that the learned trial court has duly discussed the
evidences available on the record. It may be found from the
evidence of P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 that they did not support the
prosecution case, hence, they have been declared hostile by the
prosecution. PW.-5 was tendered by the prosecution and P.W.-6
Haider Ali is not a witness of the facts and circumstances of the
killing of the brother of the informant. P.W.-6 has only stated that
his father is a Chowkidar in Mor Tisab Chauki. He has also stated
that witnesses Ram Ashish Ram and Ram Charan Rai have died.
12. As regards the other witnesses, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that they had never
seen the deceased in the company of the accused
persons/respondent no. 2. Pointing out the evidence of Sitabiya
Devi (PW.-10), learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted
that in course of trial, she had developed a completely different
story. The trial court has discussed in detail the deposition of P.Ws
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
6/11
9 and 10 and has pointed out material contradictions which have
been found in the evidences of P.Ws.- 9 and 10.
13. It is submitted that this is an appeal against acquittal.
The Principles governing an appeal against acquittal has been laid
down and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
H.D. Sundara and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2023) 9 SCC 581 and the case of Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024)
8 SCC 149. Paragraph-8 of the Judgment in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) has been relied upon to submit that unless an
appellate court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the chain of
criminalogical events has been duly established which points out
to one and only one conclusion towards the guilt of the accused, an
order of acquittal need not be interfered with.
Consideration
14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also on
perusal of the records, we have noticed that in this case the
appellant is himself referring to the deposition of only two
witnesses namely P.Ws- 9 and 10, who are said to be the material
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. This Court has once again
gone through the entire evidences on the record particularly that of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
7/11
P.Ws.- 9 and 10. PW.-9 has stated in his examination-in-chief that
when he was in search of his brother, then Rajendra Ram who was
standing on the road told him that his brother had gone to watch
the dance performance. Therefore, he should go for a sleep. Hriday
Ram and Naresh Ram were also present with Rajendra Ram. He
has further stated in paragraph-4 of his deposition that in the
murder of his brother Rajendra Ram, Hriday Ram and Naresh Ram
were involved. There was a quarrel between the accused persons
and his brother about 8-10 days ago and after the murder of the
brother the accused persons were saying in the village that he had
died otherwise he would have played with the prestige of many
girls. He has stated that Naresh Ram is the uncle of Mira Kumari
and the said Mira Kumari had illicit relationship with his brother.
He has stated that the uncle of Mira Kumari was not angry with
Sajjan Ram. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that
he had no occasion to read any paper relating to love affair. He
knew Sarita Devi with whom the deceased had visiting terms and
affection. In paragraph-’12’ of his cross-examination, this witness
has categorically stated that on the day of murder he had not seen
his brother in the company of Rajendra Ram. The defence
suggested to this witness that Rajendra Ram had been falsely
implicated as the deceased had love affairs with several girls and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
8/11
for this reason he had been murdered. The witness denied the
suggestions. This witness has further stated in his cross
examination that the villagers never told his brother to keep illicit
relationship with a girl. However, the accused persons had
threatened him.
15. On going through the evidence of P.W.-9, we find
that he has nowhere stated, who have seen the accused persons
either with the deceased or following the deceased on the day of
his murder. This witness has not claimed that in his presence any
of the accused persons had threatened the deceased.
16. From the evidence of Sitabiya Devi (P.W.-10), we
find that she had developed altogether a different story in her
examination-in-chief. She was not in her house on the date of
occurrence, still she has claimed in her examination-in-chief that
Naresh Ram, Rajendra Ram and Hriday Ram had called her son
Sajjan Ram and they had taken him away, whereafter her son did
not return. We have noticed that P.W.-10 has come out with a
completely different story and she has tried to develop the case on
the theory of last seen, in course of trial.
17. The learned trial court has recorded its finding in
paragraph-20 of the impugned Judgment, which we re-produce
hereunder for a ready reference:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
9/11“20. From the evidence discussed,
it is evident that there are no eye witnesses to
the occurrence. The prosecution has tried to
build its entire case on the edifice of last scene
evidence. However, none of the witnesses has
said that they had last seen the deceased with
the accused persons. It is imperative to observe
that the informant in his Fardbeyan and also in
his testimony before the court has clearly
stated that on the day of occurrence his aunt
was stung by Scorpion and therefore he and his
mother had gone to Chhotki Mor for her
treatment. He has said in this testimony that
after he returned at about 10:30 PM he started
searching for his brother on which the accused
persons said that his brother had gone to see
the dance and asked him to go and sleep. On
the next day the dead body of Sajjan Ram was
found in the filed of Ayub Mian. Thus, it is
evident that the entire case was based on the
suspicion of the informant and none of the
witnesses had seen the accused take the
deceased with them.
Even though Sitabiya Devi has said
that the accused persons had come and taken
the deceased with them but as per the
testimony of the informant and the Fardbayan
she was not present at her house and had gone
with the informant to the doctor for treatment
of informant’s aunt. Therefore her testimony
becomes doubtful.”
18. At this stage, we take note of the submissions of the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this is an appeal against
acquittal. The principles governing an appeal against acquittal has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
10/11
been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (supra).
19. Paragraph-8 of the Judgment in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“8. In this appeal, we are called
upon to consider the legality and validity of theimpugned judgment [State of Karnataka v. H.K.
Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591] 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 378CrPC
can be summarised 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
reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while
deciding an appeal against acquittal, after
reappreciating 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.84 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
11/118.5. 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.”
20. Keeping in view the principles governing an appeal
against acquittal, when we analyse the evidences available on the
record and take a view on the finding of the learned trial court, we
are of the considered opinion that no perversity may be found in
the findings of the learned trial court.
21. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned
Judgment.
22. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Ajit Kumar, J)
pravinkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 10.08.2025 Transmission Date 10.08.2025