Patna High Court
Rameshvar Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1234 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-1993 Thana- EKANGARSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Rameshvar Prasad S/O Late Deosharan Mahto R/O Village- Daniyavan, P.S-
Telhara, District- Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jitendra Singh S/O Sri Tilli Singh R/O Village- Daniyavan, P.S- Telhara,
Distt.- Nalanda.
3. Tilli Singh@Titli Singh S/O Late Raghunath Singh R/O Village- Daniyavan,
P.S- Telhara, Distt.- Nalanda.
4. Mithilesh Singh S/O Late Ganga Singh R/O Village- Daniyavan, P.S-
Telhara, Distt.- Nalanda.
5. Pawan Singh S/O Late Chhotu Singh R/O Village- Daniyavan, P.S- Telhara,
Distt.- Nalanda.
6. Chandra Shekhar Singh S/O Late Kuldeep Singh R/O Village- Daniyavan,
P.S- Telhara, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 20-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the
judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge- V, Sub-Divisional Civil Court,
Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 1998, arising out of
Ekangarsarai (Telhara) P.S. Case No. 214 of 1993, whereby
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
2/10
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the learned Trial
Court from the charge of Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
(PW5) had filled the Aari (Ridge) of his field which is situated
adjacent to the 'Daak Than' and to the west of Bhola Singh's
field. On 27.07.1993, at about 9:00 AM, Bhola Singh with 40-
45 persons armed with rifle started dismantling that Aari and
when informant's son, namely, Kameshwar Prasad made protest,
thereupon, Bhola Singh ordered Jitendra Singh (Accused No. 1)
to shoot him. Thereafter, accused Jitendra Singh shot by a rifle
near his navel and he died on the spot. Informant was following
his son from some distance towards the place of occurrence
when the incident took place. He along with Shiv Prasad (PW4),
Nanda Mahto, Harinandan Mahto (PW1), Shambhu Prasad
(PW3), Dilip Kumar (PW6) and Shyam Kishor Verma (PW2)
who were also following him, witnessed the incident. The
accused persons had been firing indiscriminately from their
rifles, causing the witnesses to flee in fear.
3. On the basis of written complaint of the informant,
Ekangarsarai (Telhara) P.S. Case No. 214 of 1993 was instituted
under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
3/10
Arms Act and investigation was taken up by the police. The
police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 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.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether
six witnesses i.e. PW1 Harinandan Mahto, PW2 Shyam Kishor
Verma, PW3 Shambhu Prasad, PW4 Shiv Prasad, PW5
Devsharan Mahto, PW6 Dilip Kumar. The prosecution has also
produced the written report of the informant, which is marked as
Exhibit P-1. 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.
5. The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on the
ground that the material witnesses namely the I.O. and the
doctor were not examined before the learned Trial Court.
Paragraph 11 of the learned trial court judgment is reproduced
as under:
"On perusal of record of this case it appears that
charge has been framed on 17.07.2001 and
prosecution evidence was closed firstly on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
4/10
19.10.2023
and during this all the process and
opportunities was given to produce all the
witnesses including I.O. and doctor witnesses
even letter was issued to S.P. Nalanda to produce
I.O. and doctor in this case but I.O. and doctor
were not produced by the prosecution for their
evidence, On 07.03.2024 on the prayer of
prosecution again chance was given u/s.- 311 of
Cr. P.C. to produce I.O. and doctor and for this
Dasti summon was given to Id. A.P.P. but again
prosecution remained fail to produce to I.O. and
doctor then again on 09.04.2024 prosecution
evidence was closed. Thus 22 years and 9 months
was given to prosecution to prove its case but
prosecution has produced only aforementioned
six witnesses. Prosecution has not been able to
produce to I.O. and doctor who were the
important witnesses of this case to prove the
charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubt. Because in murder case place of
occurrence and cause of death must be proved by
the prosecution. In this case prosecution is fully
silent to produce the murder weapon also. On
this point many rulings are available in which it
was clearly held that cause of death must be
proved.”
6. The learned Trial Court also held that the
prosecution witnesses who were examined were related
witnesses and partisan. However, they gave contradictory
evidence on the facts in issue. Therefore, their evidence was not
sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that all the five
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
5/10
prosecution witnesses have proved the place of occurrence as
well as the weapon used by the accused causing death of the
deceased on the spot. The learned Trial Court also failed to
consider the fact that there is no fault on behalf of the
prosecution for non-appearance of the concerned doctor and the
Investigating Officer for their examination at the trial.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted
before this Hon’ble Court that the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge requires no interference, and was passed
rightly, based on facts and circumstances of the case.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondents, 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.
11. The examination of the I.O. is an important aspect in
a criminal trial, and it becomes even more important in cases
where contradictory evidence is produced before the learned
Trial Court by the witnesses. This court in Mashi Das Minz &
Ors. vs. State Of Bihar reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 517 has held
that- “Examination of I.O. in a murder case is essential when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
6/10
there is contradiction in the deposition of eye witnesses who are
also in inimical terms from before non-examination of the
doctor left the occular evidence uncorroborated/supported by
medical evidence as it could not be tested in the Court”
12. The non-examination of the doctor who conducted
the postmortem also negatively affects the case of the
prosecution, and causes prejudice to the defence. The evidence
of the doctor who conducted the postmortem is an important
evidence in a murder trial, where the postmortem report can be
tested along with the doctor’s opinion. The account of the nature
of injuries inflicted upon the victim, and whether they were
sufficient to cause the death of the victim in ordinary course, are
opined in the postmortem report which can be further
corroborated by the evidence of the doctor. This is important in
establishing the cause of death, which has not been done in the
present case and as such, the cause of death is not proved before
the learned Trial Court.
13. Upon perusal of evidence on record, there seems to
be contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
All the witnesses claim to be an eyewitness to the alleged
occurrence. However, P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that
while the victim was injured, he held the victim for about half
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
7/10
an hour, and then only the rest of the witnesses, who were
relatives of the victim came. Thus, they were not present on the
place of alleged occurrence, and could not have been seen the
alleged occurrence. Before the learned Trial Court, PW3 and
PW4 have also given contradictory statement which does not
prove that they were an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence.
We, therefore, find that the statement of the prosecution
witnesses have material contradiction. This has to be viewed
together with the fact that the I.O. and the doctor have not been
examined before the learned Trial Court, and thus, the
prosecution has not been able to provide sufficient evidence in
the trial to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable
doubt.
14. In our view, 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 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.
15. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
8/10
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
conclusion 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
9/10with 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……….”
16. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 561, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to relevant precedents,
has observed as follows:
“39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the
scope of interference by an appellate Court for
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be
exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the
accused is possible from the evidence available
on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with
the judgment of acquittal would have to record
pertinent findings on the above factors if it is
inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1234 of 2024 dt.20-08-2025
10/10
17. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with
only for compelling and substantial reasons. 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 learned 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.
18. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
19. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.08.2025 Transmission Date