Patna High Court
Indradip Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.513 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2011 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Indradip Thakur, S/o- Sri Rameshwar Thakur, Resident of Razakpur, P.S.-
Nowkothi, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Hari Nandan Sharmai, S/o Late Jageshwar Sharma, Resident of Razakpur,
P.S.- Nawkothi, District- Begusarai.
3. Parmila Devi, W/o Harinandan Sharma, Resident of Razakpur, P.S.-
Nawkothi, District- Begusarai.
4. Bipin Sharma, S/o Harinandan Sharma, Resident of Razakpur, P.S.-
Nawkothi, District- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 29-07-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge- XI, Begusarai in Sessions
Trial No. 935/2011 (Panjiyan Sankhyan 5755/2013) arising out
of Nowkothi P.S. Case No. 43/2011, whereby Respondent Nos.
2 to 4 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the
charge of Sections 323, 341, 325, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
2/9
2. Vide order dated 03.12.2024/22.01.2025, notices
were issued to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, upon which they
appeared by filing Vakalatnama through learned Advocate, Mr
Bipin Kumar.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
25.03.2011
, at about 10:30 a.m., the informant was carrying on
repairing of his hut, the accused persons came there and said
that they would not allow him to carry the work. When the
informant protested, the accused persons gave lathi blow to
informant i.e. Indradeep Thakur and his wife Asha Devi
causing, injury to them.
4. On the basis of written complaint of the informant,
Nowkothi P.S. Case No. 43/2011 was instituted under Sections
323, 341, 307/34 of I.P.C. and investigation was taken up by the
police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet
against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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 eight witnesses viz. PW1 Md. Kasim, PW2
Ramchandra Thakur, PW3 Indradeep Thakur, PW4 Asha Devi,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
3/9
PW5 Uma Devi, PW6 Anupam Kumari, PW7 Nitya Nand
Sharma and PW8 Dr. Sidhant Kumar. The prosecution has also
produced certain exhibits (signature of informant on written
complaint and injury report prepared by Dr. Sidhant Kumar).
The defence has also examined two witnesses viz. DW1 Ganesh
Mahto and DW2 Ramchandra Poddar. 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. 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 Surajpal Singh & Ors. Versus The State
reported in 1952 SCR 193, paragraph 13 of which reads as
under:
“..the High court has full power to review
the evidence upon which the order of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
4/9acquittal was founded. But it is equally well
settled that the presumption of innocence of
the accused is further reinforced by his
acquittal by the trial Court and the findings
of the trial Court which had the advantage
of seeing the witnesses and hearing their
evidence can be reversed only for very
substantial and compelling reasons.”
7. 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:
“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.”
8. From perusal of the judgment of the learned trial
Court, it appears that “facts in issue” considered and decided by
the learned Trial Court for acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
are as under:
(i) There is a material contradiction between
testimonies of witnesses regarding place of occurrence.
(ii) Injury report of victim reveals that injury is
inconsistent with the weapon used in alleged offence as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
5/9mentioned in the FIR.
9. After hearing the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for both the parties and upon
examining the materials available on the record, the following
issues arise for consideration before this Court:
(I) Whether the place of occurrence has been
established by the prosecution?
(II) Whether the nature of injury sustained by victim
is consistent with the type of weapon allegedly used by the
accused as per FIR, and whether the prosecution has established
the use of weapon beyond reasonable doubt?
10. With reference to issue No. (I), it is found that
there are material inconsistencies and uncertainties regarding
the place of occurrence in the present case. It has been stated in
the F.I.R. that the place of occurrence of the alleged crime is
outside the house. In this regard, it is noteworthy that it has been
deposed by the eye witness(PW6), the daughter of the informant
in her examination- in- chief that the place of occurrence is
inside the house of the informant. The attention of this Court has
also been drawn to deposition of wife of the informant (PW4),
who in her examination-in-chief has deposed that the place of
occurrence is inside the house. Upon considering the above-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
6/9
mentioned facts, it is quite clear that there is variation in place
of occurrence. Thus, in the present case, place of occurrence has
not been established. At this point, it would be relevant to take
note of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Syed Ibrahim versus State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 10 SCC 601 wherein it has been held that
“when place of occurrence itself has not been established, it
would not be proper to accept the prosecution side.”
Accordingly, the issue no. I is decided in negative.
11. With reference to issue No. (II), it has been stated
in the F.I.R. that the weapon used during the occurrence is lathi
and danda. In this regard, it is noteworthy to consider the injury
report which states injury No. 1 sustained by Indradeep Thakur
as “one sharp cut wound on left Parietal area of scalp”. The
attention of this Court has also been drawn to deposition of
investigating officer (PW7). This witness, in his examination-in-
chief, has deposed that the wife of the informant during her
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. had not mentioned that
farsa was used in course of occurrence. The attention of this
Court has also been drawn to deposition of the prosecution side,
which has introduced farsa being used as weapon in the
occurrence, for the first time during trial. At this point, it would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
7/9
be relevant to take note that lathi can cause a lacerated wound
(wound the edges of which, are irregular and not clean cut and
are produced by blows from blunt objects) and cannot cause a
sharp cut injury or incised wound (orderly solution of skin and
tissue by a sharp cutting weapon drawn across the skin, it can
either be produced by light sharp cutting instrument like knife,
razor or heavy sharp cutting weapon like sword or farsa). At this
point, it would be relevant to take note of the decision rendered
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganga Prasad v State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1987) 2 SCC 232, the prosecution case was
that spade was used as instrument of an offence. The victim had
sustained three lacerated wounds and one contusion. The Court
held that injuries in the nature of lacerated wound or contusion
could not be caused by the use of sharp-edged weapon unless
blunt side of it is used. Such injuries are only possible by use of
a hard and blunt object.
In the case of Kartarey v State of Uttar Pradesh,
(1976)1 SCC 172, the Supreme Court held that:
“we take this opportunity of
emphasizing the importance of eliciting the
opinion of the medical witness, who had
examined the injuries of the victim, more
specifically on this point, for proper
administration of justice particularly in a
case where injuries found are forensically of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
8/9same species, e.g., stab wounds, and the
problem before court is whether all or any of
those injuries could be caused with one or
more than one weapon. It is the duty of
prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see
that the alleged weapon of the offence, if
available, is shown to medical witness and
his opinion invited as to whether all or any
of the injuries on the victim could be caused
with that weapon. Failure to do so may
sometime cause aberration in course of
justice.”
In Ishwar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1976) 4
SCC 355, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“it is duty of the proescution, and
no less of Court, to see that the alleged
weapon of the offence, if available, is hown
to the m,edical witness and his opinion
invited as to whether all or any of the
injuries on the victim could be caused with
that weapon. Failure to do so may
sometimes, cause aberration in the course of
justice.”
In the case of Narayan Laxman Mhatre v State of
Maharashtra (1984) 1 Crimes 18 (Bom), where there was
inconsistency about weapon of offence, i.e. medical evidence
showed that murder might not have been committed with the
file (instrument) as alleged by the prosecution, casts a doubt as
to whether really the instrument (weapon) as alleged by
prosecution was used in this case or not.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.513 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
9/9
Accordingly, the issue No. II is decided in negative.
12. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court
has taken a plausible view based on the evidence available on
the record. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to
be bad or perverse. Under such circumstances, no case for
interference with the impugned judgment is made out.
13. In the result, the present criminal appeal preferred
against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2022 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 935/2011 (Panjiyan Sankhyan 5755/2013)
arising out of Nowkothi P.S. Case No. 43/2011 by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge- XI, Begusarai is
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Rajesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.08.2025 Transmission Date 04.08.2025
[ad_1]
Source link