Dismissed¶¶75

Jhalku Sah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Sept 2025CR. APP (DB)/203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC DB criminal appeal under S.413 BNSS 2023 against acquittal for murder (IPC 302/34, 201/34) dismissed: circumstantial-evidence chain incomplete; date and manner of occurrence not proved (hostile sole independent witness; IO not examined; post-mortem vs eyewitness discrepancies); appellate restraint in appeals against acquittal affirmed per Surajpal Singh (1951 SCC 1207), Chandrappa ((2007) 4 SCC 415), Mrinal Das ((2011) 9 SCC 479) and C. Chenga Reddy ((1996) 10 SCC 193).

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 stands upheld, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶75

Jhalku Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 stands upheld, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶¶75

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2024 (ST No. 242 of 2010, arising out of Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004) requires any interference by this Court in the criminal appeal against acquittal. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

In a criminal appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court must examine whether the finding of the court below is perverse and prima facie illegal; once the grounds of the judgment are found not perverse, the scope of interference is limited because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal.

¶¶49

Ratio / Principle

An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only for compelling and substantial reasons; where there is no perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must not take a different view merely because another view is possible, the trial court having had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of witnesses.

¶¶73

Key takeaways

The date of the alleged occurrence was not established by the prosecution: the prosecution witnesses gave materially inconsistent dates and times of occurrence, and PW-8 (Doctor) opined that death took place 1-2 months before examination of the dead body, whereas per the FIR the occurrence fell between 10.09.2004 and 14.09.2004.ratio¶¶35
The manner of occurrence was not proved: PW-3 spoke of the body being found in a gunny bag cut into pieces and PW-4 of the legs and throat being cut off, but the post-mortem report and the Doctor's evidence showed an intact decomposed body.ratio¶¶38
Serious doubts are cast on the date and manner of the alleged occurrence because the sole independent witness (PW-2) was declared hostile, denied making any statement to the Police, and the Investigating Officer was not examined.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.203 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Patna (Sudhir Singh, J., authoring the oral judgment; Rajesh Kumar Verma, J. on the Bench), decided 10-09-2025: appeal by informant Jhalku Sah under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2024 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-9th, Saran, Chapra (Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2010, arising out of Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004) acquitting Respondent No. 2, Satinath Sah, of charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The case against the accused rested wholly on circumstantial evidence (deceased last seen with Respondent No. 2's wife). Held: (i) date of occurrence unestablished - prosecution witnesses gave conflicting dates/times and the Doctor opined death occurred 1-2 months before examination of the body recovered on 14.09.2004; (ii) manner of occurrence unproved - post-mortem showed an intact decomposed body despite witness claims of a dismembered body in a gunny bag; (iii) the sole independent witness (PW-2) was hostile and the Investigating Officer was not examined; (iv) the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the case being proved short of the required standard, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. Applying C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, and relying on Surajpal Singh v. State, 1951 SCC 1207, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court's findings and dismissed the appeal; pending applications disposed of (NAFR).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.203 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2004 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Jhalku Sah S/O Late Rangi Lal Sah Resident of Village- Madarpur, Police Station- Mashrakh, District- Saran. ... ... Appellant

¶5

... ... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Bihar

¶8

Satinath Sah S/O Mewa Sah R/O Village- Madarpur, P.S- Mashrakh, Distt.Saran.

¶9

=================== Appearance : For the Appellant	====== :	... ... Respondents ============================= Ms. Aashi Wats, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2	:	Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State ===================	: ======	Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. =============================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) Date : 10-09-2025

¶12

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-9^th , Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2010, arising out of Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004, whereby Respondent No. 2 has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 302/34, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Vide order dated 03.04.2025, notices were issued to

¶14

the Respondent No. 2, upon which he appeared by filing Vakalatnama through learned Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav.

¶15

The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 2/13

¶17

informant, in brief, is that the informant used to sell fruits and vegetables in Siliguri. On 11.09.2004 at about 09:00 p.m., the daughter-in-law of the informant told the informant, that the father of the informant had gone with the wife of Respondent No. 2 to see her ailing buffalo last evening but had not returned. The informant and his mother came to their village from Siliguri and made a hectic search of his father(the deceased) but all the efforts went in vain. On 14.09.2004, at about 14:00 p.m., on the information about a foul smell near the Baans-Kathi of Heeralal Ram, the informant and others went there and found the dead body of his father in a decomposed condition, which was identified from the piece of dhoti and chappal . The informant raised suspicion that the wife of Respondent No. 2 with the help of others has committed the alleged occurrence and threw the dead body near the Baans-Kathi.

¶18

On the basis of fardbeyan report of the informant, Masrakh P.S. Case No. 198 of 2004 was instituted under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the Police. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent No. 2 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 3/13

¶20

against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶21

During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Kamla Manjhi, PW2 Subhash Manjhi, PW3 Sudama Devi, PW4 Ganesh Sah, PW5 Ashrafi Sah, PW6 Jhalku Sah (informant), PW7 Champa Devi and PW8 Dr. Pankaj Kumar. The prosecution has also produced certain documents which were marked as ‘Exhibits’ i.e., Identification of Signature of the informant on fardbeyan , Identification of Signature of the informant on protest petition, Identification of Signature of the informant on application and Identification of Signature of the Doctor on Bone Injury Report. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 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.

¶22

The learned Trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record, and the evidence produced before the Court, acquitted the accused persons observing that the alleged occurrence is based on circumstantial evidence and, in

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 4/13

¶24

the cases of circumstantial evidence, it is most important that the links of the incident should be connected to each other. The Trial Court has further observed that no one has seen the deceased going with the accused and the accused has been implicated only due to past enmity. The relevant part of the impugned order under Paragraph-19 is reproduced as under:

¶25

" प्रसतुतघटनापरररससरतजनसाक् परआधाररतहै। परररससरतजनसाक् मे् हसबसेमहतवपूररहोताहैरक घटनाकीकडीएकदुसरेसेजुडीहोनीचारहए, ्रद घटनाकीकडीएकदुसरेसेनहीजुडतीहैतो अरभ्ोजनपकमुकदमेकोसारबतकरनेमेरवफलहोता है।मृतककोअरभ्ुकतकेसासजातेहुएरकसीनेनही देखाहै, मात्रपूवरदुशमनीकेकाररअरभ्ुकतकोफँसा रद्ाग्ाहै।अरभ्ोजनकीओरसेपरररकतसारक्ो केसाक् मेनतोतारतम्ाहैऔरनहीबलहैबरलक एकदुसरेकेरवरोधाभाषहै।ऐसीरससरतमेअरभ्ोजन पकअरभ्ुकतगरकेरवरदलगाएगएअंतगरतधारा 302/34, 201/34 कोसमपूरर - ्ुरकतकतसंदेहसेपरे सारबतनहीकरसकाहै।"

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

¶27

the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of Champa Devi (PW-7) that the deceased was taken away by Respondent No. 2 and other on the pretext of seeing his ailing she-buffalo and thereafter, his dead body was recovered. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to consider that there is no motive for the informant to falsely

¶28

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 5/13

¶29

implicate Respondent No. 2.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court, and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court requires no interference in the present case.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have also gone through the records of the case.

¶32

The sole question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned judgment requires any interference by this Court.

¶33

As per the evidence of PW-1, the occurrence is said to have been taken place approximately 8-10 years back at around 08:00 p.m. in the night. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that the alleged occurrence is of about 12-13 years ago, and he saw the deceased at around 10:00 p.m. in the night. PW-3 in his evidence has stated that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place 11 years back at around 09:00 p.m. in the night. Therefore, there is a material inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the date and time of occurrence.

¶34

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 6/13

¶35

As per the FIR, the date of the alleged occurrence is between 10.09.2004 (when the accused was last seen) and 14.09.2004 (when the body of the deceased has been found). The FIR was instituted on the date of recovery of the body, i.e., on 14.09.2004, and the post mortem examination was conducted on the same day. In his evidence, the Doctor (PW-8) had opined that the soft tissue of the body that was received was decomposed, and death had taken place 1-2 months back from the date of examination of the dead body. If the opinion of the Doctor with regard to the death of the deceased is accepted, the date of occurrence itself is not proved. Thus, from the evidence of the Doctor, it can be said that no case was instituted for a period of 1-2 months from the date of missing of the deceased. In light of these facts, we find that the date of the alleged occurrence has not been established by the prosecution in this case.

¶36

Further, the Doctor opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained by the him. In his evidence, PW3 has stated that the body of the deceased was found in a gunny bag, which were cut into pieces. PW-4 has also stated in his cross-examination that the body of deceased was found in pieces, with legs and throat cutoff. However, from the post

¶37

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 7/13

¶38

mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor, it is evident that a decomposed body was recovered which was intact and not in pieces. Thus, the manner of occurrence has also been not proved by the prosecution in the present case.

¶39

In the present case, the sole independent witness (PW-2) has been declared hostile, however he has stated in his evidence that the he only saw the deceased going around 10 P.M. and has no further information regarding the alleged occurrence. It is also important to note that in his statement before the Trial Court, PW 2 has stated that he never made any statement before Police. Further, the Investigating Officer has also not been examined in the present case, and as such serious doubts are cast on the date and the manner of the alleged occurrence.

¶40

The present case is a case of circumstantial evidence where the accused persons have been put to trial, solely on basis of the fact that the deceased was last seen with the wife of the respondent No. 2. However, PW-2 in his evidence stated that he only saw the deceased going at 10:00 p.m. No other corroborative evidence has been conclusively proved by the prosecution and the chain of circumstances have not been completed and proved by the prosecution. In cases of

¶41

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 8/13

¶42

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution needs to complete the chain of circumstance in a manner where no gap is left. The apex court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. , as reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193 held the following:

¶43

“21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence……”

¶44

In the present case, the prosecution has been unable

¶45

to establish the date of the alleged occurrence, as the prosecution witnesses have stated multiple date of occurrences and the doctor has also opined a different date of alleged occurrence in his evidence. Further, there are material inconsistencies in the statements made regarding the recovery of the body of the deceased, and as such the manner of occurrence has not been proved. Thus, the prosecution has been unable to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.

¶46

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a criminal

¶47

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 9/13

¶48

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.

¶49

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 v. State , as reported in 1951 SCC 1207 :-

¶50

“13. It is well established that in an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal 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

¶51

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 10/13

¶52

substantial and compelling reasons.”

¶53

In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , as

¶54

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Supreme Court reiterated this view and laid down the general principles to followed while dealing with appeal against an order of acquittal. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:

¶55

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

¶56

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶57

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶58

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the

¶59

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025

¶60

11/13

¶61

reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶62

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶63

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

¶64

The Apex Court further reaffirmed this view in

¶65

Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura , as reported in (2011) 9 SCC 479 , Paragraphs 13 & 14 of which read as under:

¶66

"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

¶67

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 12/13

¶68

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.

¶69

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………."

¶70

Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered

¶71

with only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the order is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for

¶72

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2025 dt.10-09-2025 13/13

¶73

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 demeanor of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.

¶74