Dismissed¶51

Sugo Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Feb 2025CR. APP (SJ)/4887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sugo Devi v. State of Bihar and others; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4887 of 2024; decided 11-02-2025 by Rajiv Roy, J.; appeal against acquittal dismissed; acquittal under Sections 323, 354(B), 504 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) SC/ST Act affirmed without interference; complaint PS Case No. 11 of 2019, Lakhisarai; counter blast to earlier case; witness contradictions incl. PW2 '168% marks' and PW6 retraction; cross-reference Lakhisarai PS Case No. 249 of 2011; appellant's counsel Vijay Kumar; Special PP Binay Krishna.

What did the court decide?

Having heard the parties and gone through the trial court record, this Court expressed itself to be in conformity with the submissions of the learned Special PP defending the acquittal. ¶35

Sugo Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No.11 C of 2019 warranted interference by this Court in the appellant's criminal appeal.

¶31

Court's answer

Having heard the parties and gone through the trial court record, this Court expressed itself to be in conformity with the submissions of the learned Special PP defending the acquittal.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

On its own perusal of the order, the Court endorsed the trial court's grounds: an earlier lodged case gave rise to this counter version; PW2's deposition was shown to be inconsistent (his claim of securing 168% marks in matriculation); the injured son was not treated by any Government Doctor in a Government Hospital; and the complainant admitted in deposition that her son subsequently went to jail in Lakhisarai PS Case No. 249 of 2011 while her husband, though an accused, was on bail.

¶46

Key takeaways

The Court accepted that the accumulated witness contradictions, including PW6's retraction about having seen the broken head, established that the complaint was lodged only to put pressure in respect of the earlier case against the complainant's side, which led to the acquittal.ratio¶49
With the facts recorded, submissions noted and the trial court's reasons incorporated, the Court held that no interference with the acquittal was required.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 4887 of 2024 (Patna High Court, Rajiv Roy, J., order dated 11-02-2025): DISMISSED. Sugo Devi appealed against the judgment dated 31.07.2024 of the Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No.11 C of 2019 (arising out of complaint PS Case No. 11 of 2019, Lakhisarai) acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (Tuntun Sao, Batoran Sao, Akash Sao, Guddu Sao, Vikky Sao and Gautam Sao) of charges under Sections 323, 354(B), 504 of the I.P.C. and Sec.3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The trial court had found the prosecution case to be a counter blast to an earlier case, noting inter alia PW2's deposition claiming 168% marks in matriculation, PW6's instant contradiction about the broken head, absence of treatment of the injured son in a Government hospital, and the complainant's own admissions that her son subsequently went to jail in Lakhisarai PS Case No. 249 of 2011 and her husband was on bail. Concurring with the learned Special PP and after reviewing the record, the High Court held that the reason assigned by the Trial Court stood incorporated and no interference was required; the acquittal was left undisturbed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4887 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai

¶3

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

¶4

Sugo Devi Wife of Dinesh Pasawan Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Tuntun Sao Son of Late Saryug Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶9

Batoran Sao Son of Late Saryug Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PS- Lakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶10

Akash Sao Son of Tuntun Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶11

Guddu Sao Son of Tuntun Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶12

Vikky Sao Son of Tuntun Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶13

Gautam Sao Son of Tuntun Sao Resident of Village - Dharmraichak, PSLakhisarai, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance :

¶16

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, SPP ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶18

3 11-02-2025

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to

¶20

remove the defects as pointed out by the office.

¶21

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special PP.

¶22

The appeal has been filed for the following relief:-

¶23

“That this memo of appeal is directed against the Judgement dated 31.07.2024 passed by Mr. Pathak Alok Kaushik, Ld. Addl. Sessions

¶24

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 2/7

¶25

Judge-1, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No.11 C of 2019 (arising out of Case No. 11 C of 2019) whereby and where under the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent No.2 to 7 as "the Court Doesn't find the accused persons guilty in the charged sections and the accused persons are ordered to be acquitted from the charge under Sections 323, 354(B), 504 of the I.P.C. and Sec.3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act.”

¶26

As per the prosecution story the complainant alleged that as she was in her house, the accused persons (Respondent No. 2 to 7) came chasing her son, Vikram Kumar. They entered the house whereafter, the assault took place on his head by iron pipe with an intention to kill. They were taking caste name and wanted them to vacate the house. In between, the modesty of the appellant was also outraged, when this was protested by her husband, he was also assaulted. The last allegation is that they took away the brief case containing clothes and Rs. 5000/-. The son was treated by one Dr. Himkar and when the SHO of the Police Station did not lodge the case, the complaint.

¶27

This led to the cognizance of the case on

¶28

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 3/7

¶29

30.05.2019, charge framed on 16.12.2019 and thereafter, the trial. Finally, after the full fledged trial, the order came to be passed by the learned Trial Court passed on 31.07.2024 by which the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 354(B), 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

¶30

Aggrieved, the present appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was consistent deposition of all the witnesses about the story narrated by the lady appellant before the Trial Court, still the Court concerned chose to look the other way which resulted into the acquittal of the accused. It is his further submissions that the appellant’s son was indeed medically treated by Dr. Himkar and it was at the later stage that in a case, he was sent to jail. In that background, an interference is required.

¶32

Learned Special PP, on the other hand, has taken this Court to the different paragraphs of the order of the Trial Court starting paragraph-11 to show that there is inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses. The Court has also recorded that the appellant’s son was not treated by any Government Doctor in a Government Hospital rather the name of Dr. Himkar has come who has not been examined. He submits that in that

¶33

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 4/7

¶34

background, the court concerned was fully justified in passing the order.

¶35

Having heard the parties and going through the trial court record, this Court is in conformity with the submissions put forward by the learned Special PP. For brevity, this Court wants to incorporate paragraphs-11 onwards which read as follows:-

¶36

“11. PW I in para 16 says that Tuntun Sao had filed a case of assault with wife and in the same case Murari Kumar, Vikram Kumar and Dinesh Paswan were implicated. Hence the cause of action of filing of the instant case is also crystal clear and this case is out and out a counter blast of that case. It is strange that PW2 in para 3 described the whole incidence which was taken place inside the house and he is giving universal of the occurrence from their door steps. Truthfulness of PW2 becomes doubtful when he gives a very strange on that statement in para 8 that he secured 168% marks in matriculation examination.

¶37

12. In case Vikram Kumar was assaulted by the accused person he would have treated in the Government Hospital and FIR would have been lodged but in the instant case nothing has happened. Even the complainant Sugo Devi accepts in para 6 & 7 of her deposition that her son Vikram Kumar went to jail in Lakhisarai P.S.

¶38

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 5/7

¶39

Case No. 249/2011 and she admits that her husband Murari Sao were also on bail.

¶40

13. Very strangely PW6 in para 8 says that he saw the broken head of Tuntun Sao and his wife but subsequently and immediately he says that the head of Tuntun Sao and his wife was not broken. So there was instant contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. PW6 in para 13 says that there is a door at the main gate of Sugo Devi which is generally opened by pushing it by hard and therefore obviously inside view was barred by main door and it is really strange that the witnesses were watching all the incident from outside of the house from their door steps.

¶41

14. PW7 in para 14 says that Sugo Devi was standing in the court and he deposed as per the instruction of complainant Sugo Devi.

¶42

15. The defence has filed the cognizance order of Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 249/19 therein Dinesh Paswan and Vikram Kumar were made accused. An FIR was also filed and charge-sheet was also filed and all were marked exhibited. From Exhibit- A to Exhibit-D respectively. Hence, this court comes to this conclusion that instant case was nothing but a counter blast to save their skin from the case filed by the accused persons of this case upon the complainant and kith and kins of the family.

¶43

16. After sincere perusal of entire set of evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion

¶44

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 6/7

¶45

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all the shadow of reasonable doubts and sections as alleged have not been proved. Therefore, Therefore, the Court does not find the accused persons guilty in the charged sections and the accused persons are ordered to be acquitted from the charges u/ss 323, 354(B), 504 IPC and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act. All the bailors of the accused are hereby ordered to be discharged from the sureties and liabilities and all the pending applications in the instant case stands disposed of by virtue of this final order and judgment.

¶46

A perusal of the order would show firstly that there was a case earlier lodged which led to this counter version. The Court has also recorded that PW 2 gives a very strange statement that he got 168% marks in the matriculation examination which shows that how inconsistent he is in his deposition. The Court has also taken note of the fact that the complainant’s son in case of injury should have been treated in a Government Hospital but nothing as such happened and the lady-appellant accepted in her deposition that he subsequently went to jail in Lakhisarai PS Case No. 249 of 2011. She also accepted her husband being an accused is now on bail.

¶47

Learned Court took note of PW-6 deposition that

¶48

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4887 of 2024(3) dt.11-02-2025 7/7

¶49

firstly he said that he saw the broken head of the complainant’s son but subsequently changed track and said that he has not seen the broken head. All these contractions led the Court to come to the conclusion that only to put pressure on the case lodged against him, this counter version has come by way of a complaint. This led to the acquittal.

¶50

The facts have been recorded, the submissions are also in the order, the reason assigned by the learned Trial Court stands incorporated, in that background, in the opinion of the Court, no interference is required.

¶51

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶52

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶53

perwez

¶54

U T

Sugo Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugo Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Sharma @ Aman Akash Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Randheer Kumar, Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Upadhayay Vs The State of Bihar

Kalyan Kishore Singh @ Chun Chun Singh @ Kalyan Kishore Purnendu @ Kalyan Kishor Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shubham Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar