Patna High Court
Yogendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.382 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2002 Thana- MANPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Yogendra Yadav, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Ganga Yadav, Resident of
Village-Chouhatta, P.S.- Manpur, Distt.-West Champaran.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raj Kishore Mahto, aged about 69 years, S/o Late Hemant Mahto,
3. Govind Mahto, aged about 46 years, S/o Radha Mahto,
4. Brajkishore Mahto, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Samsubhag Mahto
5. Tarkeshwer Mahto, aged about 53 years, S/o Ram Chandra Mahto,
6. Anand Mahto @ Nandu Mahto, aged about 24 years, S/o Late Laxmi Mahto
7. Ramchandra Mahto @ Chandra Mahto, aged about 62 years, S/o late Bhogari
Mahto,
8. Lal Bahadur Mahto, aged about 43 years, S/o Ramchandra Mahto,
9. Yogendra Mahto, aged about 41 years, S/o Rajkishore Mahto,
10. Brajesh Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Ramjanam Mahto,
11. Rajesh Mahto, aged about 49 years, S/o Ramanam Mahto,
12. Laljee Mahto, aged about 54 years, S/o late Bhogari Mahto,
13. Jitendra Mahto, aged about 45 years, S/o Rajkishore Mahto,
14. Thag Mahto, aged about 63 years, S/o late Bechu Mahto,
15. Prem Mahto, aged about 63 years, S/o late Bandh Mahto
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 13-08-2025
Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
2/12
Respondent Nos.2 to 15 and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned
APP for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred
under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against
the judgment of acquittal dated 04.01.2023, passed by the
learned District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in
Sessions Trial No.2573 of 2014, arising out of Manpur P.S. Case
No.21 of 2002, whereby Respondent Nos.2 to 15 have been
acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections
147, 148, 452, 436 & 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of
the appellant/informant purchased a plot from Ghanshyam
Mahto and constructed a residential house, flour mill and
threshing floor on it. On 29.09.2002, at about 07:00 A.M., three
tractors, one of which was a DI Mahindra tractor belonging to
Ram Janam Mahto, while the other two had registration
numbers of Nepal, arrived at the place of occurrence. Several
named accused were reportedly sitting on the tractors, armed
with fire-arm, spear and lathi and about 25 to 30 unknown
persons, armed with weapons, came at the place of occurrence
and made indiscriminate firing. On the orders of Rajesh Mahto
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
3/12
and Rajkishore Mahto, Braj Kishore Mahto and Prem Mahto
had set the house and flour mill of the informant on fire.
Thereafter all the miscreants made indiscriminate firing with
intent to kill the family members of the informant. The
informant’s brother managed to inform the police and upon
arrival of the police, the family of the informant and local
villagers advanced towards the accused. It is alleged that
Rajkishore Mahto allegedly fired from a single-barrel gun with
intention to kill the informant’s cousin Naresh Yadav, injuring
him above the left eye and he fell down. With the help of police
and villagers, Rajesh Mahto, Jitendra Mahto, Yogendra Mahto,
Lalji Mahto, Govind Mahto, Ramchandra Mahto, Anand Mahto
and Rajkishore Mahto were overpowered, their weapons were
seized and handed over to the police.
4. On the basis of written complaint of the informant,
Manpur P.S. Case No.21 of 2002 was instituted under Sections
147, 148, 452, 436 & 307/149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 25(1-
b)a, 26 & 27 of the Arms Act and the investigation was taken up
by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-
sheet against Respondent Nos.2 to 15 and, accordingly,
cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
4/12
persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether three witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Naresh Yadav @ Naresh
Prasad, PW-2 Ajay Prasad Yadav & PW-3 Prabhu Yadav. The
defence has produced certain Exhibits (certified copy of
ordersheet dated 08.02.2018, certified copy of protest petition,
certified copy of order dated 11.10.1999 in Case No. 1063 m/99,
patta in the name of Basmati Devi and rent receipt). After
closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and
after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the
accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, who are the eye-witnesses and has
wrongly disbelieved their depositions. The learned Trial Court
had also disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 Naresh Yadav, who is
the injured witness. It has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the informant, Investigating Officer and
the Doctor have not been examined in this case causing serious
prejudice to the prosecution.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
5/12
and have also gone through the records of the case.
8. The sole question that requires consideration by
this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
requires any interference by this Court.
9. Upon meticulous examination of the records
and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, primarily on account of
serious lacunae in the manner of conducting the trial and in the
presentation of evidence.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding
the case of State of U.P. v. Jaggo reported in (1971) 2 SCC 42
that the prosecution is obliged to examine all material witnesses
whose testimony is necessary to unfold the narrative of the case,
read as under:
“15. This Court in Habeeb Mohammad case referred to
the observations of Jenkins, C.J., in Ram Ranjan Roy v.
Emperor [ILR 42 Cal 422 : 19 CWN 28 : 27 IC 554]
that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at
all costs a theory but to investigate the offence and to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and the
duty of a Public Prosecutor is to represent the
administration of justice so that the testimony of all the
available eyewitnesses should be before the court. Lord
Roche in Stephen Senivaratne v. King [AIR 1936 PC
289 : 39 Bom LR 1 : 164 IC 321] referred to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
6/12observations of Jenkins, C.J. and said that the
witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on
which the prosecution is based must be called by the
prosecution whether the effect of their testimony is for
or against the case for the prosecution. That is why this
Court in Habeeb Mohammad case said that the
absence of an eyewitness in the circumstances of the
case might affect a fair trial. On behalf of the appellant
it was said that Ramesh Chand was won over and
therefore the prosecution could not call Ramesh. The
High Court rightly said that the mere presentation of
an application to the effect that a witness had been won
over was not conclusive of the question that the witness
had been won over. In such a case Ramesh could have
been produced for cross-examination by the accused.
That would have elicited the correct facts. If Ramesh
were an eyewitness the accused were entitled to test his
evidence particularly when Lalu was alleged to be
talking with Ramesh at the time of the occurrence.”
11. In the present case, the Doctor who allegedly
examined the victim and who only could have proved the
nature, and extent of injuries, has not been examined.
Consequently, the injuries, as alleged to have been sustained by
the victim, remains unproved.
12. Similarly, the Investigating Officer, being the prin-
cipal witness to prove the steps taken in the course of investiga-
tion and to establish the place of occurrence, has also not been
examined. The absence of such testimony has created a material
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
7/12
gap in the chain of evidence, which casts doubts on the prosecu-
tion case.
13. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove the al-
leged recovery of the arm said to have been seized in connection
with the offence. No sanction order for prosecution under the
Arms Act has been produced before the Trial Court. The seizure
list relating to the said arm has neither been exhibited during
trial nor proved through the testimony of the seizure list witness.
Such omission strikes at the admissibility and credibility of the
alleged recovery under Sections 61 and 100 CrPC read with
Sections 65 and 67 of the Evidence Act.
14. At this juncture, it is notweworthy that the
informant of the case, being a direct witness to the occurrence,
was the most competent person to depose regarding the genesis
of the incident. The failure to examine the informant, without
assigning valid reasons, has deprived the defence of the
opportunity to test the veracity of the prosecution case through
cross-examination. Such omission amounts to withholding of
the material evidence, thereby attracting an adverse inference
under Illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which
reads as:
“114. Court may presume existence of certain
facts.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
8/12The Court may presume the existence of any fact
which it thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the par-
ticular case.
Illustrations
The Court may presume –
(a)that a man, who is in possession of stolen
goods soon after the theft is either the thief or
has received the goods knowing them to be
stolen, unless he can account for his
possession ;
(b)that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, un-
less he is corroborated in material particulars ;
(c)that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed,
was accepted or endorsed for good considera-
tion
(d)that a thing or state of things which has been
shown to be in existence within a period shorter
than that within which such things or states of
things usually cease to exist, is still in existence ;
(e)that the judicial and official acts have been
regularly performed ;
(f)that the common course of business has been
followed in particular cases ;
(g)that evidence which could be and is not pro-
duced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the
person who withholds it ;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
9/12
(h)that if a man refuses to answer a question
which he is not compelled to answer by law, the
answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him ;
(i)that when a document creating an obligation
is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has
been discharged.”
15. Further, the record reveals that out of 13 charge-
sheet witnesses, only 3 have been examined. The material
witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have not been produced
before the Court, and no explanation was given for same. The
non-production of material witnesses, particularly those who
could have corroborated the prosecution case, casts shadow of
reasonable doubt on the prosecution.
16. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt,
and the benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the
accused. In the present matter, the cumulative effect of the non-
examination of material witnesses, the failure to prove the
seized arms, and the withholding of primary evidence has
rendered the prosecution case wholly unreliable. These
omissions are not mere irregularities but go to the root of the
matter, thereby causing grave prejudice to the accused.
17. We find that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
10/12
criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused 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.
18. 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
Court in the case of Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura reported in
(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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
11/12conclusion 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
is 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……….”
19. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.382 of 2023 dt.13-08-2025
12/12decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by
the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable.”
20. 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
demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
21. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
22. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Amit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.08.2025 Transmission Date 25.08.2025
[ad_1]
Source link