Patna High Court
Satyadeo Kumar @ Mantu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.902 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2021 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Satyadeo Kumar @ Mantu Kumar S/o Shalik Sharma R/o Maharajganj,
Rafiganj, P.s. - Rafiganj, Distt. - Aurangabad
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Rup Narayan Sharma R/o vill - Kujapi, P.S. -
Chandauti, Distt. - Gaya
3. Radha Devi W/o Late Rup Narayan Sharma R/o vill - Kujapi, P.S. -
Chandauti, Distt. - Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar No.6, Advocate
Mr. M.K. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 2&3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 07-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
judgment of acquittal dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
2/10
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gaya in Sessions Trial Case No.
03 of 2022, arising out of Chandauti P.S. Case No. 61 of 2021,
whereby Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been acquitted by the
learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 302, 304-B and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Vide order dated 25.11.2024, Trial Court records
was called for, which was received on 16.01.2025.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the sister of
the appellant was married with accused Anil Kumar Sharma
(Respondent No. 2) five years earlier to the alleged occurrence.
It was said that at the time of marriage, the informant side gave
various articles to the groom side as gifts. In spite of this, dowry
was being demanded on phone calls by the accused persons, and
one co-accused Rup Narain Sharma gave threatening of life to
the sister of the appellant. On 28.02.2021, the in-laws members
killed his sister by throttling her neck. This informant received
the said information on a phone call. On getting this
information, the informant and his family members went to the
matrimonial home of his sister where they found her lying dead
on her bed. Her two kids were weeping there, whereas no major
members of the family were present at the scene of occurrence
as they were absconding from their house.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
3/10
4. On the basis of written statement of the informant,
Chandauti P.S. Case No. 61 of 2021 was instituted under
Sections 302, 304-B and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
investigation was taken up by the police. The Police after
investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2
& 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed
against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether nine witnesses i.e. PW1 Salik Sharma, PW2 Lalita
Devi, PW3 Rahul Kumar, PW4 Balli Mistri, PW5 Dr. Randhir
Kumar, PW6 Satyadeo Kumar @ Mantu Kumar, PW7 Shri
Umesh Kumar Singh, PW8 Dafadar Vijay Kumar Sinha and
PW9 Shri Mukesh Kumar Singh. The prosecution has also
produced several documents which were marked as 'Exhibits'
(Seizure memo of 'Dupatta' with the signatures of the witnesses
on it; Post mortem report of the deceased; Written information
of the informant with his signature; Application dated
15.06.2021
of the police for permission to send the viscera of
the deceased for its chemical examination to the FSL, Patna;
Letter to the Director of the FSL, Patna for chemical
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
4/10
examination of the viscera of the deceased; Letter of the FSL,
Patna; FSL report of the viscera of the deceased; Formal FIR
and the charge-sheet).
The defence has also examined one witness viz. DW1
Md. Habib, who is an Advocate Clerk. After closure of
prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of
trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons.
6. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on
the ground that the prosecution was unable to prove the
allegations against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable
doubt. The learned Trial Court, while dealing with the charge
under Section 304-B, held that the prosecution has not been able
to prove that there was any demand for dowry by the accused
persons, and medical report, i.e., post mortem report suggests
that death was caused due to hanging, and not by throttling, as
claimed by the prosecution. With respect to the offence charged
under Section 302 of I.P.C, the learned Trial Court held that
there was no distinct allegation for constituting the offence
under section 302 of I.P.C. and in course of trial, the prosecution
has confined its case to the dowry death, and not of murder.
However, the case of dowry death, as set out by the prosecution,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
5/10
has not been proved.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of
prosecution witnesses with respect to demand of dowry. The
learned Trial Court also failed to consider the evidence on
record that the death of the deceased was within seven years of
her marriage because of torture, cruelty and for non-fulfilment
of demand of dowry and came to the conclusion that offence
under section 304-B of the I.P.C. is not made out.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the learned Trial Court had covered all the aspects of the
alleged occurrence and had rightly acquitted the accused in the
present case, and the judgment of the learned trial Court
requires no interference.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the appellant
and the respondent and have also gone through the records of
the case.
10. The sole question that requires consideration by
this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
requires any interference by this Court.
11. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution
was unable to prove that the victim was being harassed for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
6/10
dowry by the accused. As per the Trial Court record, the
prosecution was unable to prove the allegations of demand of
dowry. For constituting an offence under Section 304-B of the
I.P.C., the major ingredient is that there should be a demand for
dowry, and consequent harassment for non-fulfillment of the
said demand. Here, no such demand has been proved by the
prosecution before the learned Trial Court. As such, the alleged
offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. is not made out.
12. For constituting offence under Section 302 of the
I.P.C., the ingredients of the offence of murder has to be
fulfilled. Murder is defined as causing death of any person with
an intention and within knowledge that his action would cause
death, and which does not fall in any exception given under
Section 300 of the I.P.C. Here, the ingredients for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C. is not fulfilled as per the Trial Court
record. No intention or any such knowledge has been proved by
the prosecution. Therefore, the offence under Section 302 of
I.P.C. is not proved.
13. Indisputably, the cause of death as per the medical
report examined before the learned Trial Court is ‘death by
hanging’, and not ‘throttling’ as claimed by the prosecution
which is also mentioned in the F.I.R.. The onus of proving the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
7/10
death caused by ‘throttling’ lies on the prosecution. It cannot be
said that since the place of occurrence was the home of the
accused, then the onus would shift to the accused. In the present
case, the prosecution has been unable to prove their case beyond
the shadow of reasonable doubt, and, in our opinion, the
judgment of the learned Trial Court requires no interference,
especially taking into consideration the post mortem report.
14. We find that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a
criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Wherever any
doubt is cast upon the case of the prosecution, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
15. In criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned Court below is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once
the Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on
which the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal
against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal
presumption about the innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is
imperative to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
8/10
Court in the case of Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9
SCC 479, paragraphs 13 & 14 of which read as under:-
“13. It is clear that in an appeal against
acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
judgment and order, interference by this
Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if
the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it
being the final court of fact, is fully
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own
decision. In other words, the law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal
provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to
be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the
competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the findings of acquittal.
14. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to
come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived
at by the trial court with respect to both facts
and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is
the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
9/10is to be interfered with only when there are
“compelling and substantial reasons” for
doing so. If the order is “clearly
unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for
interference……….”
In the case of Ghurey Lal versus State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in paragraph 75, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the said view and observed as
under:
“75. The trial Court has the advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses who
have given evidence, therefore, the appellate
court should be slow to interfere with the
decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by
the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable.”
16. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with
only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the order
is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must
not take a different view only because another view is possible.
It is because the Trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanor of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
17. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.902 of 2024 dt.07-08-2025
10/10
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
18. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 11.08.2025 Transmission Date 11.08.2025