Patna High Court
Pappu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 August, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.849 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2012 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Pappu Kumar, S/o Gajendra Sharma R/v- Gajachak Mahammadpur, P.S.-
Janipur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bijendra Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Singh @ Suresh Sharma R/v- Gajachak
Mahammadpur, P.S.- Janipur, District- Patna
3. Shantosh Sharma S/o Ramshani Singh R/v- Gajachak Mahammadpur, P.S.-
Janipur, District- Patna
4. Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Singh S/o Late Chandra Hans Singh R/v-
Gajachak Mahammadpur, P.S.- Janipur, District- Patna
5. Priyanka Devi S/o Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Singh W/o Sudhir Kumar R/v-
Manjhauli, P.O.- Anda Pakauri, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna
6. Guria Kumari D/o Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Singh W/o Kunal Kumar R/v-
Rauniya, P.O.- Karai, P.S.- Naubatpur, DIstrict- Patna
7. Pammi Kumari D/o Suresh Sharma @ Suresh Singh W/o Bittu Kumar R/v-
Jaitipur Jalalpur, P.O and P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna
8. Satya Sharma S/o Late Amika Singh @ Bhukal Singh R/v- Gajachak
Mahammadpur, P.S.- Janipur, District- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate
Mr.Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Bharat Lal, APP
For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 8 : Md. Nurul Hoda, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
I.A.No.01 of 2023
This interlocutory application has been filed for
condoning the delay of about 155 days in preferring this
revision application.
2. For the reasons mentioned in this interlocutory
application, I am satisfied that the petitioner was prevented from
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.849 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
2/5
sufficient cause in preferring this revision application within
time.
3. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is
allowed and the delay in filing this application is hereby
condoned.
Cr. Revison No.849 of 2022
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order 24.03.2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna in
Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the
learned trial court acquitted all the seven accused persons facing
trial in this case under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for charges
under Sections 307 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner and learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
opposite parties.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that perusal of order-sheet of the learned
trial court would show that though summons were issued and
bailable/non-bailable warrants were also issued, but there is no
service report of summons or execution report of warrants on
record. Thereafter, this petitioner was taken into custody in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.849 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
3/5
some other matter and remained in custody from 22.02.2021 till
June 2022. The evidence in this case was closed on 09.03.2022.
The petitioner was not having any knowledge about the
proceeding before the learned trial court and his requirement for
appearance as a witness in the said case. The learned senior
counsel further submits that the learned trial court acquitted all
the accused persons under Section 232 of the Code, but it
overlooked the provision under Section 230 of the Code
wherein it has been provided that the court shall issue any
process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the
production of any document or other thing. But the record does
not show any steps was taken for compelling the attendance of
the witnesses. The learned senior counsel, thus, submits that the
impugned order could not be sustained as there is non-
compliance of the legal provisions and the learned trial court did
not take effective steps for ensuring the presence of witnesses
before it.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite parties vehemently contends that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order. The learned counsel submits
that after framing of charge on 20.08.2015, the matter has been
fixed for evidence by the learned trial court and, thereafter, the
learned trial court took a number of steps including issuance of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.849 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
4/5
summons to the witnesses, issuance of bailable and non-bailable
warrants and, thereafter, issuance of a letter to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna for securing the presence of the
prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, Dasti summons were issued
against the witnesses and it was received by the learned APP on
13.12.2019
. When the witnesses were not produced even on
subsequent dates, finally the evidence of the prosecution was
closed on 09.03.2022. Since there was no evidence, the learned
trial court rightly acquitted the accused persons. Therefore, there
is no infirmity in the impugned order.
8. Having regard to the rival submission and on
perusal of record, it is apparent on face of the record that the
grievance of the petitioner is mostly against the prosecution
agency whose duty is to ensure the execution of the orders of
the court. It is evident from the record that the learned trial court
took several steps for ensuring presence of witnesses before it
without any prayer being made on behalf of the prosecution in
terms of Section 230 of the Code. In this manner, the matter has
been kept pending for six years for recording the evidence of the
prosecution. The petitioner is the informant of the case and
after the matter reached the stage of trial, he did not show any
interest and did not inquire what was expected from him. He
was taken into custody on 22.02.2021, ie., after about six years
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.849 of 2022 dt.19-08-2025
5/5
of commencement of evidence of the prosecution. The petitioner
could not put all blame on the court for non-appearance of the
witnesses and consequent acquittal of the accused persons under
Section 232 of the Code. Merely because there is no
service/execution report of summons/warrants, the same would
not make the impugned order bad in the eyes of law considering
the efforts taken by the court. If the prosecution failed to bring
the witnesses, the courts are not expected to keep the matter
pending for all time to come. Further, the record does not show
that the court was unduly hasty in closing the evidence and
delivering acquittal order.
9. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or
infirmity in the impugned order and hence, the order dated
24.03.2022 needs no interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 21.08.2025 Transmission Date 21.08.2025