[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Md Badsah Ansari @ Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.549 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2021 Thana- DAUDPUR District- Saran
======================================================
Md Badsah Ansari @ Ansari, Son of Md. Barik Ansari @ Mohd. Barik @
Abdul Barik, Village- Gali No. 29, House No. 2699 and PS- Tughlakabad
Extn Kalkaji District- South Delhi New Delhi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md Murtaza Ansari @ Murtaza Ansari, Son of Wakil Ansari Village- Barwa
Lahmari Daudpur, P.S.- Daudpur, Dist- Saran
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Pravashankar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, 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 : 05-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgment of acquittal dated 20.01.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge- IX, Saran, Chapra
in Sessions Trial No. 652 of 2021, arising out of Daudpur P.S.
Case No. 111 of 2021, whereby Respondent No. 2 has been
acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections
302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Vide order dated 27.03.2025, notice was issued to
the Respondent No. 2, upon which he appeared by filing
Vakalatnama through learned Advocate, Mr. Satyendra Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
2/8
Sinha.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of
the informant’s sister was solemnized with Murtaza Ansari in
the year 2013. Soon after marriage, Murtaza Ansari and his
family members started torturing her by harassing and
assaulting her. It has also been alleged that on previous
occasion, when her sister had been assaulted by her in-laws, she
went to AIIMS, Delhi for treatment. Two months before the
incident, they assaulted his sister and its information was given
to the police but after counselling, she went to her matrimonial
house. It has also been alleged that two days prior to Eid, again
they assaulted her, whereafter his sister came to her parental
house and, after persuasion, she again went to her matrimonial
house. She was ousted from her matrimonial house and started
living in the courtyard along with her children. It is further
alleged by the informant that on 16.05.2021, at about 01:15 hrs.,
he received a phone call of the neighbor of his sister that his
sister had been shot dead. Soon after, he along with his family
went there and saw that, his sister was killed by fire arm injury.
4. On the basis of written statement of the informant,
Daudpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 was instituted under
Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
3/8
Arms Act and investigation was taken up by the police. The
police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against
Respondent No. 2, accordingly, cognizance was taken.
Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges were framed against Respondent No. 2 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether seven witnesses, viz. PW1 Anwar Ali, PW2 Md.
Shamsher Ansari, PW3 Alauddin Ansari @ Awaldin, PW4
Mansoor Ansari, PW5 Raja Alam, PW-6 Dr. Surendra Mahto
and PW7 A.S.I. Umesh Pandey. The prosecution has also
produced certain documents which were marked as ‘Exhibits’
(Signature of the informant on the FIR and statement made to
police; Signature of medical officer on postmortem report;
Identification of signature of Investigating Officer on written
report; Identification of written report and identification of
signature of the Investigating Officer on formal F.I.R.). After
closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of Respondent
No. 2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after
conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted Respondent
No. 2.
6. The learned Trial court passed the order of acquittal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
4/8
on the ground that the witnesses who were examined before the
court did not support the case of the prosecution. The informant
in this case (PW-5) has also not supported the case of the
prosecution. The trial Court further held that the witnesses
which were examined by the prosecution gave contradictory
statements. Therefore, the prosecution was unable to prove their
case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the
witnesses that only bullet was recovered by the police from the
place of occurrence. It is further submitted on behalf of the
appellant that the story of dacoity has come for the first time
during trial and important witnesses have not been examined
during the trial.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and
the judgment of acquittal requires no interference by this Court.
9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
5/8
11. It is evident from the records of the trial Court that
no prosecution witness had supported the case of the
prosecution before the learned trial Court. The informant of the
case was examined as PW-5. During the trial, he had stated that
in course of dacoity in the house of deceased, she had sustained
fire-arm injury on her head. Due to the said injury, she
succumbed to death. The informant himself retracted from his
first version made in F.I.R., and got declared hostile.
The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-7,
who in Paragraph-8 of his deposition, has categorically stated
that number of witnesses, during the course of investigation, had
stated that the death had taken place in course of a dacoity
which was committed by some unknown persons. The other
prosecution witnesses PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 were also declared
to be hostile as they had not supported the case of the
prosecution. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court had
rightly come to the conclusion that it is the case of no evidence
and has passed the order of acquittal in favour of the
Respondent-husband.
12. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
6/8
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.
13. 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 (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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
7/8provides 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……….”
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.549 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
8/8the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable.”
14. 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.
15. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11.08.2025 Transmission Date 11.08.2025
[ad_2]
Source link