Dismissed¶65

Kumari Geeta Sinha @ Kumari Geeta Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Sept 2025CR. APP (DB)/577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal dismissed; informant-appellant vs State of Bihar and 4 accused; S.413 BNSS 2023; charges Ss.341, 323, 504, 307/34 IPC; single simple lacerated injury not corroborating FIR; PW1/PW3 assailant contradiction; PW2 eyewitness status disproved; wall-height contradiction (3 ft/8 ft/13-14 ft per Case Diary); benefit of doubt; limited scope of interference with acquittal absent perversity; Mrinal Das (2011) 9 SCC 479; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (2024) 8 SCC 149; Patna High Court, decision 19-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stands upheld and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶65

Kumari Geeta Sinha @ Kumari Geeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stands upheld and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires any interference by this Court.

¶36

Court's answer

The injury report discloses only a single 'lacerated' injury on the informant's head, opined to be simple, which does not corroborate the FIR's allegation of indiscriminate repeated blows with lathi and rod; had the assault occurred as alleged, injuries would have been grievous and multiple.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

There is a contradiction between PW3 (informant attributing the rod blow to Ajit Kumar) and PW1 (attributing it to Sudhir Kumar); viewed together with the injury-report discrepancy, this creates serious doubts in the manner of the alleged occurrence.

¶39

Key takeaways

Contradictory evidence of PW6 and PW2 on where the blood fell (on the informant's sari versus on the ground 1-2 feet away) establishes a material contradiction, so the prosecution has been unable to prove that PW2 was an eye-witness to the occurrence.ratio¶40
Material contradictions exist on the height of the wall allegedly jumped by the accused (3 feet per PW3, 8 feet per PW1, approximately 13-14 feet per the I.O.'s Case Diary); this aspect of the manner of occurrence was not proved, and the medical evidence likewise did not support the nature of injuries.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.577 of 2025, Patna High Court, 19-09-2025 (Sudhir Singh & Rajesh Kumar Verma JJ.; oral judgment per Sudhir Singh J.): The informant-appellant appealed under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the acquittal dated 25.02.2025 by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Madhubani (Sessions Trial No. 324 of 2016, arising out of Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015) of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 charged under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 307/34 IPC. The High Court found: (i) the injury report showed a single simple lacerated head injury, contradicting the FIR's claim of indiscriminate repeated blows with lathi and rod; (ii) PW1 and PW3 contradicted each other on which accused wielded the rod; (iii) PW6 and PW2 contradicted each other on where the victim's blood fell, disproving PW2's claimed eyewitness status; and (iv) the height of the wall allegedly jumped was given variously as 3 feet, 8 feet, and 13-14 feet per the Case Diary, leaving the manner of occurrence unproved. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's findings suffered no illegality or perversity, the court, following Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, held that an acquittal may be reversed only for compelling and substantial reasons and dismissed the appeal; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.577 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2015 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Kumari Geeta Sinha @ Kumari Geeta Devi W/O Ram Lochan Mahto R/O Village- Gumati No.-13, Ranti, P.S- Rajnagar, Distt.- Madhubani.

¶5

... ... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Dayakant Mahto S/O Late Dev Krishna Mahto R/O Village- Chharapatti, P.S- Khutauna, Distt.- Madhubani.

¶9

Ajeet Kumar S/O Ram Parikshan Mahto R/O Village- Chharapatti, P.SKhutauna, Distt.- Madhubani.

¶10

Sudhir Kumar S/O Chandrakant Singh R/O Village- Chharapatti, P.SKhutauna, Distt.- Madhubani.

¶11

Draupadi Sinha D/O Lal Bahadur Shashtri R/O Village- Chharapatti, P.SKhutauna, Distt.- Madhubani.

¶12

... ... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

¶15

Date : 19-09-2025

¶16

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of the B haratiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 324 of 2016, arising out of Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections

¶17

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 2/11

¶18

341, 323, 504 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.09.2015, the informant was at her house writing something. At that time, the accused persons, namely, Dayakant Mahto, Draupadi Sinha, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Ajit Kumar Mahto came there with iron rods and poles in their hands. They came there by jumping over the wall of her house at 14:30 p.m. and started assaulting her on the head indiscriminately. Furthermore, the accused, Sudhir Kumar and Ajit Kumar broke the lock of her house and took away Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) from a box in her house. She then fell unconscious in her house. Thereafter, her daughter informed her relatives through mobile phone about the alleged occurrence, and they came and took her to Sadar Hospital, Madhubani.

¶20

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 210 of 2015 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the Police. The Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 307/34 of Indian

¶21

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 3/11

¶22

Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶23

During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Ramchandra Mahto, PW2 Md. Hashim, PW3 Geeta Devi @ Kumari Geeta Sinha (informant), PW4 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, PW5 Vidya Bhushan Singh and PW6 Puja Kumari @ Puja Singh. The prosecution has also produced certain documents which were marked as ‘Exhibits’ i.e., Ext.-01: signature of Geeta Devi @ Kumari Geeta Sinha on the fardbeyan, Ext.-P-2/P.W.04: signature of medical witness no. 04 Dr. Rajiv Ranjan on the Injury Report, Ext.-P-3/P.W.05: signature of SHO Vikram Kumar Jha on the formal FIR and Ext.-P-4/P.W.05: signature of S.I. Ramshankar Paswan on the application given to the Sadar Hospital for obtaining 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.

¶24

The learned Trial Court held that there was a land dispute between the family of the informant, and the accused persons. They are also related to each other and a dispute related to ancestral property is going on between both the sides. The

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 4/11

¶26

relevant part of Paragraph-15 of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under:-

¶27

“ उकतसाकीकेददयेगयेसाकयबयानयहभीसपषटहोता हैदकअदभयुकतदयाकांतमहतोइसकेचाचाहैवद्रौपदी देवीउसकीचाचाकीबहूवउसकीभाभीहैएवंअदभयुकत अजीतदसनहाद्रौपदीदसनहाकाजीजाहैवसुधीरदसनहा द्रौपदीदसनहाकेभाईहै।उभयपकोकेबीचमेअभी पैतृकजमीनकाबंटवारानहींहुआहैदजसकादववादअभी चलरहहै।"

¶28

The learned Trial Court further held that there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the manner of occurrence. PW1 in his evidence has stated that the accused Sudhir Kumar assaulted the informant with rod, however, the informant, who is PW3, in her evidence has stated that the accused Ajit Kumar assaulted her with a rod. PW1 has also stated that the informant was with Sticks and Rod, however, PW3 (informant) in her evidence has stated that she was only assaulted with rods and did not mention about sticks. Further, the height of the wall, which was jumped in the alleged occurrence, was also not proved by the prosecution. The informant, in her evidence stated that the height of the wall was 3 feet and PW1 in his evidence stated that the height of the wall was 8 feet, however, according to Police diary the height of the wall is determined to be approximately 13-14 feet.

¶29

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 5/11

¶30

The learned Trial Court further held that the prosecution could not prove that the informant was admitted to a hospital for treatment for four days. PW6, who is the daughter of the informant, has stated in her evidence that her mother was in the hospital for four days. However, no in or out patient number had been produced before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court held that there are significant contradictions in the testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses. Also, the Injury Report does not corroborates with the allegations levelled in the FIR. Thus, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons based on the evidence available on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant/informant submitted that PW3 (informant) gave her statement and supported the allegations made against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The said informant was injured and treated at Sadar Hospital, Madhubani and injury marks have also been found on her body. He has further submitted that the other witnesses were also examined and all of them have supported the prosecution case.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent-State 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

¶33

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 6/11

¶34

order of the learned Trial Court requires no interference in the present case.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

The allegation in the FIR by the informant was that four persons entered the house of the informant and started assaulting on her head with lathi and rod ‘indiscriminately’. However, upon perusal of the injury report and the evidence of the Doctor, we find that there is a Single ‘lacerated’ injury on head of the informant (the injured) which is opined to be a simple injury. If the informant was assaulted in the manner as alleged in the FIR, the injuries would have been of grievous nature and multiple injuries would be there. However, this is not the case as the the injury report does not corroborate with the allegations made in the FIR. The informant in her evidence has stated that she was given repeated blows on her head by the accused persons, but this is also not evident from the injury report of the informant. Further, as per the evidence of the informant (the injured), the

¶38

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 7/11

¶39

accused Ajit Kumar assaulted on her head with rod. But PW1, in his evidence has stated that the accused, Sudhir Kumar had assaulted the injured with the rod. These, when viewed together, creates serious doubts in the manner of the alleged occurrence.

¶40

As per the fardbeyan of the informant, only the daughter (PW6) was present at the place of the alleged occurrence. Subsequently, PW2 was introduced as a witness in the trial, who claimed to be present at the place of the alleged occurrence. However, upon perusal of records and the impugned judgment, there is a contradiction in the evidence of the PW6 and PW2. PW6 states that the blood shed from the informant got on the Sari of the informant, but PW2 in his evidence has stated that blood was on the ground approximately 1-2 feet away from where the informant was lying unconscious after the alleged occurrence. Thus, there is a material contradiction in the evidence of the two witnesses and, as such, the prosecution has been unable to prove that PW2 was an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence.

¶41

Further, there are material contradiction with respect to the height of the wall, which was jumped by the accused persons. Upon perusal of the evidence of the witness and the materials on record, PW3, who is informant, states in her evidence that the height of the wall was 3 feet. PW1 in his

¶42

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 8/11

¶43

evidence states that the height of the wall was 8 feet. But, upon perusal of the Case Diary, it is found that the I.O. has stated that the height of the wall is approximately 13-14 feet. This is an important aspect of the manner of the occurrence which has not been proved by the prosecution in the present case. The prosecution has therefore been unable to establish the manner of the alleged occurrence. Also, the medical evidence has not supported the nature of injuries of the victim and, consequently, the manner of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, we find that the prosecution has been unable to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 9/11

¶47

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:

¶48

"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.

¶49

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

¶50

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 10/11

¶51

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………."

¶52

17. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of

¶53

Karnataka , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon’ble Supreme

¶54

Court, after referring to relevant precedents, has observed as follows:-

¶55

“41. 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:

¶56

41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

¶57

41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

¶58

41.3. 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.

¶59

42. 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

¶60

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.577 of 2025 dt.19-09-2025 11/11

¶61

the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.”

¶62

Therefore, an order of acquittal is to be interfered

¶63

with only for compelling and substantial reasons. In cases if the order is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. But where there is no perversity in the findings 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 interfered with in absence of strong and compelling grounds.

¶64