Patna High Court
Ram Chandra Sahu @ Ram Chandra Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 5 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.703 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2017 Thana- BISFI (PATAUNA) District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Chandra Sahu @ Ram Chandra Sah Son Of Late Babu Lal Sahu @ Late
Babu Lal Sah Resident Of Village - Bardaha, P.S. - Bisfi (Patauna Op),
District - Madhubani ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pawan Kumar Sah Son of Satya Narayan Sah Resident of Village - Gouran,
P.S. - Nanpur, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 05-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the informant-
appellant, the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of acquittal dated 19.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge- IXth court, Madhubani (hereinafter referred to
as the 'learned trial court') in connection with Sessions Trial
No. 36 of 2018, arising out of Bisfi (Patauna OP) P.S. Case No.
83 of 2017. The learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
2/20
sole accused-respondent No.2 of the charges under Sections
302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.').
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on fardbeyan of Ram
Chandra Shah who is father of the deceased Punil Shah. In his
fardbeyan recorded on 13.04.2017 at 22:50 hrs, at the parti land
of Vishwanath Shah, by the Sub-inspector of Police, Hanuman
Chaudhary, the informant has alleged as under :-
"On 13.04.2017 at about 4.00 PM, his son was going
by his bicycle towards Kataiya Bazar for bringing vegetables
but till late evening he did not return, then he along with his
entire family members had gone in search of his son. In course
of search, near the house of his co-villager Bharosi Sahani, the
bicycle and bag with vegetables were found. One women of
Sarisaw village told him that an unknown person had taken
away his son on a motorcycle towards 'Maharji Bandh'. At the
same time, little girl children of the village also told the
informant that near the Maharaji Bandh Dhab 2-3 persons were
involved in Hathapai (physical quarrel by hand and fist). On
this information, the informant went near Maharaji Bandh Dhab
where Vishwanath Sah told him that his son's dead body was
lying there. He had raised hulla and reached there, then he saw
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
3/20
that the neck of his son was slitted by sharp edge weapon and
blood was oozing out. His son was residing in Lucknow where
he was working in a sweets factory. 5-6 days before he had
come and his marriage was fixed for 19.04.2017. His son has
kept one mobile of which number is 9557414350, on which he
had made call but the call was not received by his son and the
mobile was later on switched off."
4. Police registered a First Information Report on
14.04.2017
at 05:30 A.M. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed vide charge-sheet No. 93 of 2017 for the offences
under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and accordingly cognizance was
taken. After following the procedures of law, the records were
committed to the court of sessions for trial.
5. In the trial court the charges were explained to the
accused-respondent No.2 who denied the charges and claimed to
be tried.
6. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 10
witnesses were examined and some documentary evidences
were laid which have been marked exhibits. A ‘hasua’ (sharp
cutting weapon) which is said to be the crime of weapon and a
mobile were seized. Those have been marked material exhibit 2
and 2/2 respectively. The list of the witnesses and the exhibits
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
4/20
marked on behalf of the prosecution are as under:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Mauje Shah
P.W.-2 Anil Shah
P.W.-3 Niranjan Paswan
P.W.-4 Ramchandra Shah
P.W.-5 Upendra Shah
P.W.-6 Sunil Kumar Shah
P.W.-7 Hanuman Chaudhary
P.W.-8 Dr. D.S. Mishra
P.W.-9 Krishnakant Mandal
P.W.-10 Md. Faiyaz
List of Documentary Exhibits:-
Ext.-1 Seizure list of Hasua
Ext.-2 Signature of informant on the fardbeyan
Ext.-3 Signature of Upendra Shah on fardbeyan
Ext.-4 Seizure list of Motorcycle
Ext.-5 & 6 Seizure list of mobile
Ext.-7 Statement of confession of guilt
Ext.-8 Seizure list of boold and soil
Ext.-9 Seizure list of mobile
Ext.-10 Hasua
Ext.-11 Inquest report
List of material Exhibits:-
Ext.-M1 Hasua
Ext.-M2 & Seizure list of mobile
2/2
7. The defence did not led any oral or documentary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
5/20evidence.
Findings of the learned trial court
8. The learned trial court having examined and
analyzed the evidences available on the record found that the
deceased was last seen going with an unknown person by a
motorcycle towards the ridge (bandh). He was seen by a woman
of Sarisaw village. The said woman who had seen the unknown
person has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
9. The trial court further noticed that in his fardbeyan
the informant disclosed that in course of search he found the
bicycle and the bag of his deceased son near the house of his co-
villager Bharosi Sahani and a woman of Sarisaw informed him
that the deceased was going on a motorcycle with one person
towards Maharaj ji bandh. The informant came in the witness
box as PW-4. In his evidence PW-4 has stated that the woman of
Sarisaw told him that his son was going on a red colour
motorcycle but the seizure list of the motorcycle (Exhibit-4)
would show that the police has seized a black and brown colour
motorcycle. There is no mention of the registration number of
the motorcycle and there is a fundamental contradiction with
regard to Exhibit-4.
10. The learned trial court has recorded that Mauje
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
6/20
Shah (PW-1) has stated in paragraph ‘4’ of his evidence that
police had seized the ‘hasua’ from a distance of 150 meters
west to the place of occurrence and had kept the same in their
bare hand. Upendra Shah (PW-5) has, on the other hand, stated
in his examination-in-chief that the ‘hasua’ was seized on the
second day of the occurrence. In paragraph-14 of his cross-
examination this witness has then stated that he had found the
‘hasua’ on the next day and it was not touched by anyone. He
has stated that he had not seen the ‘hasua’ in anybody’s hand.
Contrary to this evidence of PW-5, the seizure list of ‘hasua’
has been shown prepared on 26.04.2017 i.e. after 13 days of the
occurrence and according to prosecution this ‘hasua’ was
recovered by police after arrest of Respondent No.2 and on the
basis of his disclosures made in the confessional statement.
11. The learned trial court further found that the
blood-stained soil and the ‘hasua’ which are Exhibit 8 and 10
respectively were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(in short ‘FSL’) to conduct a scientific test, therefore, the
submission is that not only the manner of recovery of ‘hasua’ is
highly doubtful, the prosecution could not obtain a scientific
opinion that there was any blood mark of a human being on the
said ‘hasua’. On the face of it, it is found that the recovery of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
7/20
weapon as claimed by the prosecution on the disclosure of the
accused is not duly proved and the prosecution evidence in this
regard would suffer from several infirmities.
12. It is pointed out that the learned trial court has
further recorded that the FIR was lodged against unknown
person, police arrested the accused person on suspicion and
thereafter charge-sheeted him on the basis of his confessional
statement. Even the motive of occurrence has not been proved
by the prosecution.
13. The learned trial court has further observed that
the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstantial evidence
and the chain of criminological event is not complete. In these
circumstances the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
14. Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, learned counsel assisted by
Mr. Yash Singh, learned counsel for the informant-appellant has
assailed the impugned judgment. It is his submission that the
learned trial court could not appreciate that the victim/deceased
was seen while being taken away on a motorcycle.
15. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
‘hasua’ was recovered by police on the basis of the disclosures
made in the confessional statement of the accused which has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
8/20
been marked Exhibit-7. It is submitted that no doubt under
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) a confessional statement made
before the police would not be admissible in evidence but at
least this part of the statement which led to the recovery of the
material object would be an admissible piece of evidence.
16. It is lastly submitted that the learned trial court
could not appreciate that the motive behind the occurrence has
also been proved by the prosecution by taking help of the
confessional statement before police (Exhibit-7).
Submissions on behalf of the informant and the State
17. On the other hand Mr. Deobind Kumar Singh,
learned counsel assisted by Mr. Devendra Kumar, learned
Advocate has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly
appreciated the entire evidence on the record and came to a
conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. Learned counsel submits that the solitary witness
who had seen the deceased going on a motorcycle with an
unknown person is a woman of Sarisaw village who has not
been investigated by the I.O. and she could not be made a
charge-sheet witness in this case. The whole prosecution case is
based on the information said to have been supplied by the said
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
9/20
woman.
19. Learned counsel further submits that the informant
(PW-4) has himself stated that at the time of writing of the
application he had raised suspicion over unknown persons. He
has further stated that he had not seen any part of the occurrence
from his own eyes. Learned counsel submits that the
prosecution has not been able to prove any motive on the part of
the respondent No.2 leading to the alleged occurrence.
20. It is further submitted that the seizure of the
weapon of crime has been shown on 13.04.2017, whereas PW-5
has stated that on the next day of the occurrence police came.
He had found the ‘hasua’ on the next day. It is, therefore evident
that the seizure list has been fabricated after the arrest of
respondent No.2 and the ‘hasua’ has been shown to be the
weapon of crime recovered on the basis of the disclosure made
by the respondent No.2. The said ‘hasua’ was not sent to FSL
and there is no evidence that there was any blood mark on the
said ‘hasua’ much less that it was human blood.
21. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, learned
counsel submits that in a case of circumstantial evidence unless
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
10/20
the entire criminological chain of event is complete and the
court comes to an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
accused, no conviction should take place.
22. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the
evidence, although the confessional statement of the accused
has been marked exhibit but the learned trial court has rightly
observed in its judgment that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence
Act would make it inadmissible and the same cannot be relied
upon.
23. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has also endorsed the submissions of
learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It is submitted that the
whole prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence
but very important witness i.e. woman of Sarisaw village who
had perhaps seen the deceased in the company of the accused
going on a motorcycle has not been examined. This has resulted
fatal to the prosecution case and the judgment of the learned
trial court does not suffer from any infirmity.
Consideration
24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
11/20
perused the trial court’s records.
25. It is evident from the materials on the record that
the basis of the prosecution case is the fardbeyan of the
informant (PW-4). In his fardbeyan, he has stated that his son
was going on his bicycle to Kataiya Bazar for bringing
vegetables but he did not return till late evening whereafter he
along with his entire family members started search of his son
and in course of that search, he found the bicycle and the bag
with vegetables near the house of Bharosi Sahani who is a co-
villager. It is, therefore, evident from his fardbeyan itself that
the deceased son of the informant had gone to the market and
after purchasing vegetables, he had returned to his village but
from near the house of his co-villager Bharosi Sahani, he had
gone missing. At this stage, the informant was told by one
women of Sarisaw village that the deceased had gone with a
person by a motorcycle towards Maharaji Bandh Dhab. At the
same time, little girl children of the village also told the
informant that near the Maharaji Bandh Dhab 2-3 persons were
involved in Hathapai (physical quarrel by hand and fist). On
this information, the informant went near Maharaji Bandh Dhab
where Vishwanath Sah told him that his son’s dead body was
lying there.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
12/20
26. This Court finds that the prosecution has not
examined the women of Sarisaw village and it is evident that the
women of Sarisaw village had not identified the another person
with whom the deceased was going on the motorcycle,
otherwise she would have disclosed the name etc. She had also
not disclosed the colour of the motorcycle. The little girl
children who were said to have given information to the
informant have not been identified and they have not been
examined. Who were those 2-3 persons near Maharaji Bandh
Dhab with whom quarrels were taking place is not known. The
informant came to know in course of search of his son that his
son was killed and his dead body was there in the field of
Vishwanath Sah and it was Vishwanath Sah who told that his
son’s dead body was lying there but again Vishwanath Sah has
not been examined by the prosecution.
27. The informant did not raise any suspicion against
the respondent no.2 in the fardbeyan (Exhibit-2).
28. Upendra Sah is one of the witnesses on the
farbdeyan who has been examined as PW-5 in this case. A close
perusal of his evidence would show that he was present with the
dead body for the whole night. He has stated that Viswhanath
Sah had first found the dead body. He has further stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
13/20
dead body was lifted from the place of occurrence and was
taken to the house from where it was brought to Madhubani.
The police had arrived at the place where the dead body was
found and the ‘Hasua’ was found on the next day. Contrary to
the evidence of PW-4, the seizure list of ‘Hasua’ (Exhibit-10)
has been shown prepared on 13.04.2017 i.e. after 13 days of the
occurrence. The CDR of the mobile phone of three mobile
numbers, namely, 7654302518, 7654239520 and 9557414350
were sought to be proved by producing one Krishnakant Mandal
(PW-9) who claimed that he was posted in the Technical Cell,
Madhubani and was told by the I.O. of this case to provide the
CDR of the three mobiles which he had made available to the
I.O. in 19 pages vide memo no.73 dated 18.04.2017. In his
cross-examination, this witness has stated that his statement was
not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further stated
that the company does not provide any certificate and apart from
giving the CDR he had not done any other things.
29. This Court, therefore, finds that even the CDR
which was obtained by the I.O. has not been proved. The I.O.
(PW-7) had prepared a ‘Nazri Naksha’ of the place of
occurrence but even that ‘Nazri Naksha’ has not been proved in
course of trial.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
14/20
30. This Court further finds that at the instance of I.O.
(PW-7) the seizure list of motorcycle bearing Reg. No. BR30A
5837 has been prepared and marked Exhibit-4. One red-black
colour mobile set was produced by someone and a production-
cum-seizure list has been prepared which have been marked
Exhibit-5 and another production-cum-seizure list of a black
colour Zem company touchscreen mobile has been marked
Exhibit-6 but who had produced the two sets of mobile to the
I.O. (PW-7) has not been disclosed.
31. We are dealing with a case in which the
prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused by
producing circumstantial evidence. The principles governing the
case of circumstantial evidence have been well discussed in a
Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. Paragraph ‘152’ of
the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
“152. Before discussing the cases relied
upon by the High Court we would like to
cite a few decisions on the nature, character
and essential proof required in a criminal
case which rests on circumstantial evidence
alone. The most fundamental and basic
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
15/20decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State
of Madhya Pradesh1 . This case has been
uniformly followed and applied by this
Court in a large number of later decisions
up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail
(Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh17
and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra18. It
may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J.
has laid down in Hanumant case1:
“It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature,
the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in
the first instance be fully established, and
all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the
one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused.”
1.(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129
17. (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55
18. (1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
16/20
32. Similar views have been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in all subsequent judgments and what have been
held in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda still holds the
field.
33. In the case of Dilavar Hussain and Others
versus the State of Gujarat and Another reported in (1991) 1
SCC 253, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“3. All this generated a little emotion during
submissions. But sentiments or emotions,
howsoever strong, are neither relevant nor have
any place in a court of law. Acquittal or
conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the
criminological chain which invariably comprises
of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot
of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of
doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or
loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each
link, must be so consistent that the only
conclusion which must follow is that the accused
is guilty. Although guilty should not escape (sic).
But on reliable evidence, truthful witnesses and
honest and fair investigation. No free man should
be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as
it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of
social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of
crime or cruelty in its execution however
abhorrent and hateful cannot reflect in deciding
the guilt.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
17/20
34. In this case not only the seizure of the crime of
weapon has been in serious doubt, the fact that crime of weapon
was seized on the basis of disclosure made by the accused in his
confessional statement is equally doubtful. The confessional
statement leading to recovery of material object would be
admissible in evidence but subject to the safeguards which have
been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 1400, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the
appellant-accused while in custody on his own free
will and volition made a statement that he would lead
to the place where he had hidden the weapon of
offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes,
etc. then the first thing that the investigating officer
should have done was to call for two independent
witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two
independent witnesses would arrive at the police
station thereafter in their presence the accused should
be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may
desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is
said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When
the accused while in custody makes such statement
before the two independent witnesses (panch
witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact
words uttered by the accused should be incorporated
in the first part of the panchnama that the
investigating officer may draw in accordance with
law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at
the police station in the presence of the independent
witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular
statement was made by the accused expressing his
willingness on his own free will and volition to point
out the place where the weapon of offence or any
other article used in the commission of the offence
had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama
is completed thereafter the police party along with the
accused and the two independent witnesses (panch
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
18/20witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as
may be led by the accused. If from that particular
place anything like the weapon of offence or
bloodstained clothes or any other article is discovered
then that part of the entire process would form the
second part of the panchnama. This is how the law
expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery
panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of
the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is
deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the
matter.
79. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely
upon the decision of this Court in Murli v. State of
Rajasthan46 , held as under : (SCC p. 425, para 34)
“34. The contents of the panchnama are not the
substantive evidence. The law is settled on that issue.
What is substantive evidence is what has been stated
by the panchas or the person concerned in the witness
box.”
(emphasis supplied)
86. Thus, in the absence of exact words, attributed to
an accused person, as statement made by him being
deposed by the investigating officer in his evidence,
and also without proving the contents of the
panchnama, the High Court was not justified in
placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery
of weapon.
35. We further find that the weapon of crime ‘Hasua’
was allegedly having blood mark but the police did not send the
said ‘Hasua’ to the FSL as a result whereof the prosecution is
not able to prove that those were human blood or blood at all on
the said ‘Hasua’. Even if it would have been a human blood, for
a safe conviction, it was necessary to match the blood present on
the ‘Hasua’ with that of the deceased which has not been done
in the present case.
46. Murli v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 9 SCC 417 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 12
* Ed. : Para 34 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./141/2009 dated 14-9-2009.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
19/20
36. In the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and after re-appreciating the entire evidences on the record, we
do not find any infirmity on the part of the learned trial court in
appreciation of the evidence. The principles governing a case of
appeal against acquittal is also well settled in the case of H.D.
Sundara vs. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles in
paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment which are being reproduced
hereunder for a ready reference:-
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment 1
rendered by the High Court while deciding an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC“). The principles which govern the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC can
be summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens
the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral
and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal
against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence,
is required to consider whether the view taken by
the trial court is a possible view which could have
been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
1. State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.703 of 2023 dt.05-03-2025
20/208.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be recorded
on the basis of the evidence on record was that
the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was
possible.”
37. At the end, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment of acquittal.
38. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Durgesh/Arvind-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 08.03.2025 Transmission Date 08.03.2025