Dismissed¶97

Kaushalya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Feb 2026CR. APP (DB)/370/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant's appeal against acquittal; Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 decided 19-02-2026; principles governing appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149; possible view test; no perversity; medical/postmortem evidence of hard and blunt force cranio-cerebral injury contradicting farsa-blow account; contradictory witness testimony; benefit of doubt; common intention Section 34 IPC; Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 376/511, 354 IPC; Section 313 CrPC; West Champaran, Bettiah; Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018; Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 4 stands and the appeal is dismissed. ¶97

Kaushalya Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 4 stands and the appeal is dismissed.

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned trial court acquitting accused-respondents no. 2 to 4 ought to be set aside. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

No perversity or infirmity persists in the impugned judgment with respect to respondents No. 2 to 4, and no interference with the judgment acquitting them is required.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principles laid down in H.D. Sundara (supra), the appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only if the only possible conclusion on the record is that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt; in the present case no conclusion other than the one taken by the learned trial court was possible.

¶95

Key takeaways

The Court's consideration is limited to the evidence as against respondents No. 2 to 4, and its appreciation and observations shall not cause any prejudice to the case of co-accused Ajay Ram.ratio¶98

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (DB) by the informant (‘X’) against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2023 of the learned District and Sessions Court, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020 (Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018), whereby accused-respondents no. 2 to 4 (Sanjay Ram, Vijay Ram and Surandra Ram) were acquitted of charges under Sections 341, 324, 307, 302 and 376/511 IPC, while co-accused Ajay Ram was convicted under Sections 354 and 302 IPC. Held, dismissing the appeal: the trial court had found contradictions in the account of the witnesses as to the place, manner, date and time of the occurrence; the eyewitness version of a farsa blow on the deceased's head was not corroborated by the postmortem evidence, which attributed death to cranio-cerebral damage from hard and blunt force impact; and the evidence of the complicity of respondents no. 2 to 4 was contradictory and uncorroborated. Following H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 (with Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149), an appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal where the view taken by the trial court is a possible view; no perversity or infirmity was made out. The Court clarified that its consideration was confined to respondents no. 2 to 4 and would not prejudice the case of Ajay Ram.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.370 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran

¶3

====================================================== ‘X’

¶4

... ... Appellant Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar

¶6

SANJAY RAM S/O RAMJI RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola, P.S.Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.

¶7

VIJAY RAM S/O MOHAN RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola, P.S.Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.

¶8

SURANDRA RAM S/O MOHAN RAM Resident of Village- Parsha Tola, P.S.- Majhauliya, District- West Champaran.

¶9

... ... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR)

¶13

Date : 19-02-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting

¶16

aside the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned District and Sessions, West Champaran, Bettiah, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020, arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the accused-respondent nos. 2 to 4, who were facing trial for the charges under Sections 341, 323,

¶17

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 2/17

¶18

324, 307, 302 and 376/511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) have been acquitted.

¶19

Prosecution Case

¶20

3. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant (PW1), who is being referred to as ‘X’, Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018, was registered at 12:35 PM, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511 and 34 IPC against (1) Ajay Ram, (2) Sanjay Ram, (3) Ramji Ram, (4) Surendra Ram, (5) Vijay Ram (6) Mohan Ram, (7) Babunti Devi, (8) Pinki Devi, (9) Uma Devi and (10) Lalmuni Devi. In her written report the informant has alleged that on 10.06.2018, at 04:00 AM, while she had gone to attend the call of the nature, accused Ajay Ram, caught her with a view to outrage her modesty, however, somehow she could manage to save herself and ran to her house and told about the incident to her husband, father-in-law and other family members, whereupon, at about 05:00 AM, her husband and other family members went to the house of accused to ask about the incident, the accused had not come to his house. It is further alleged that at about 06:00 AM, when they saw Ajay Ram, her husband and father-in-law asked him as to why he had committed such act, upon which accused Ajay Ram and the aforementioned accused persons became furious and started assaulting them. It is alleged that accused Sanjay Ram (appellant No.1) and Ramji Ram caught

¶21

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 3/17

¶22

hold of her husband and accused Ajay Ram inflicted a farsa blow on the head of her husband, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head and he fell down and became unconscious. The other accused persons assaulted the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the informant by lathi, fatta, tenguli and farsa causing injuries to them. Thereafter, the husband of the informant was brought to Majhaulia hospital in unconscious state, from there the Doctor referred to Bettiah. As the husband of the informant did not become conscious at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah, in the evening, he was referred to Patna, where he was getting treatment.

¶23

4. It appears from the record that as the husband of the informant died during treatment at Patna, Section 302 IPC was added.

¶24

5. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet on 27.09.2018 against four accused persons, namely, Ajay Ram, Sanjay Ram, Vijay Ram and Surendra Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376/511 and 302/34 IPC. Vide order dated 19.02.2019, cognizance was taken against the accused persons under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511 and 302/34 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah and since the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions court, the case

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 4/17

¶26

was committed to the court of Sessions by order dated 11.12.2019, where Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020 was registered on 18.12.2019.

¶27

6. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.02.2020, charges were framed under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376, 511, 302/34 IPC.

¶28

7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences. The names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being shown hereunder in tabular form:-

¶29

List of Prosecution Witnesses

¶30

PW-1	‘X’ (the informant)
PW-2	Jagdeo Ram
PW-3	Shyam Bahadur Thakur
PW-4	Raghunath Ram
PW-5	Prabhu Ram
PW-6	Bhola Ram
PW-7	Dr. Sanjay Kumar
PW-8	Ravindra Ram
PW-9	Rajmati Devi

¶31

List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution

¶32

Exhibit ‘1’	Fard-Beyan
Exhibit ‘2’	Endorsement of IO on the_fard-_ beyan
Exhibit ‘3’	Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘4’	Charge-sheet
Exhibit ‘5’	Postmortem report

¶33

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 5/17

¶34

8. Thereafter, the statement of the respondents no. 2 to 4 was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC on 23.11.2022. They took a plea that they are innocent. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

¶35

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

¶36

9. Learned trial court, upon analyzing the evidences and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the postmortem report of the deceased qua the charges levelled against the respondents No. 2 to 4 and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against respondents no. 2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and held respondents nos. 2 to 4 not guilty of the charge framed against them. Accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 341, 324, 307, 302 and 376/511 IPC and discharged them from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

¶37

Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant

¶38

10. It is submitted that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the materials available on the record and the evidence adduced during the course of trial. The learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record with regard to the charges framed under Section 34 IPC as the accused persons have committed the occurrence with common intention.

¶39

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 6/17

¶40

The evidence of the independent eye-witness PW 2 (Jagdeo Ram) has not been properly appreciated. Apart from the above grounds, the acquittal of the accused-respondents No. 2 to 4 is otherwise also bad in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside.

¶41

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶42

11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has duly considered every aspect of the matter thread bare and rightly acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 4. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.

¶43

Consideration

¶44

12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶45

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered the materials on record.

¶46

13. As regards the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PWs 6, 8 and 9 are the hearsay witnesses, whereas PW 8 has been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution.

¶47

14. In her examination-in-chief, the informant (‘X’) has deposed that the occurrence took place nearly three years and nine months ago, at 4’ O’clock in the morning. While she had gone to attend the call of nature, accused Ajay Ram came and caught her and removed her cloths with an intention to outrage her modesty, however, she saved herself and rushed to her home. Thereafter, the

¶48

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 7/17

¶49

informant along with her husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law ( bhasur ) and other family members went to the house of accused Ajay Ram to enquire about the incident at about 06:00 AM, the accused persons started abusing them. On being protested by her husband, accused Ramji Ram and Sanjay Ram caught her husband and accused Ajay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the head of her husband, smashing his head, as a result whereof the husband of the informant fell down. When the father-in-law and the brother-inlaw of the informant went to save her husband, accused Sanjay Ram cut both the hands of the father-in-law of the informant by tangi . Accused Sanjay Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram assaulted the brother-in-law of the informant by lathi and fatta , causing injuries to him. The informant has also deposed that when she came in rescue accused Uma Devi, Babunti Devi, Pinki Devi and Lalmuni Devi all four of them assaulted her and her sister-inlaw (gotni) leading to eye issues to her sister-in-law. On hulla Bharat Ram, Jagdeo Ram, Suresh Yadav, Raghunath Ram came and took her husband and other injured to Majhaulia hospital, from where her husband was referred to Bettiah and thereafter to Patna and in course of treatment her husband died at Patna. She has further deposed that on being back, Ramji Ram sharpening farsa and tangi threatened that we have killed one, two more are to be

¶50

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 8/17

¶51

killed and pressurizing them to compromise the case, else she too will be killed.

¶52

15. In her cross examination, she has mainly deposed that she cannot say that who wrote the application. The occurrence of assault lasted for half an hour. She cannot say that how many people came and what colour of clothes they were wearing. She has further deposed that she cannot say who inflicted how many blows from lathi and farsa . She deposed that her bangles were broken at the place of occurrence, which the police did not seize. She did not hand over to the police her soiled clothes or the broken bangles nor the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence was given. She has deposed that she had told the police that her husband sustained injuries by farsa . She did not give any petition to the Superintendent of Police with regard to the investigation against the Darogaji .

¶53

16. PW 2, Jagdeo Ram, has deposed in his examinationin-chief that the occurrence took place at 06:00 AM, around three years and nine months ago. He was at home and some verbal altercation was going on, in the meanwhile, accused Ajay came armed with farsa inflicted a blow on the head of Nagina Ram (deceased), as a result whereof he fell down. When the brother and father of the deceased came to his rescue, accused Sanjay inflicted blow by tangi leading to cut on both the hands and on the body.

¶54

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 9/17

¶55

Thereafter, the injured were taken to Majhaulia Hospital, from where the Doctor referred Nagina Ram (deceased) to Bettiah and thereafter to Patna, where during the course of treatment, the deceased died after two days. He claimed to identify all the accused persons.

¶56

17. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has deposed that he cannot tell about the day and the date of the occurrence. The occurrence lasted for ten minutes. Around 500 hundred people gathered, amongst whom he can tell the name of a few. He was standing at a distance of a few steps from the place of occurrence. He denied that no such occurrence had taken place as he explained and that he was doing so in connivance of the informant to implicate them in a false case so as to grab the land and the house of the accused persons.

¶57

18. PW 3, Shyam Bahadur Thakur, the Investigating Officer, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 10.06.2018 he was posted as Sub Inspector of Police at Majhaulia P.S.. On that date, the informant submitted an application in the police station, which was endorsed to him by the S.H.O. Om Prakash Chauhan, he identified the endorsement made by him, which was marked as Exhibit-2. He identified the handwriting of the Writer Constable, who had recorded the formal FIR, which was marked as Exhibit-3. He has deposed that in course of

¶58

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 10/17

¶59

investigation, he went to the place of occurrence and inspected it on the same day. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the informant, who told the name of the accused persons. PW 3 also recorded the statement of the witnesses, who supported the occurrence and told the name of all the accused persons. The post mortem report was received on 14.09.2018. Having found the occurrence to be true, he submitted the Charge-sheet, which he identified and the same came to be marked as Exhibit-4. He has deposed that since no injured came to him, he did not send them for treatment.

¶60

19. In his cross-examination, PW 3 has said that he has not got specialized training for investigation of cyber crime, rape, attempt to rape and murder cases nor he is expert of cyber crime, but has the experience of investigating other cases. He has deposed that he did not seize any article or the weapons connected with the occurrence nor produced any document in the Court. He denied that the case was found false in course of supervision by the Supervising Authority. He denied that his investigation was misdirected, factually lacking, unscientific and full of infirmity and that the same had been completed on table. He denied that no such occurrence has been committed by the accused persons.

¶61

20. PW 4, Raghunath Ram, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place around four

¶62

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 11/17

¶63

years ago at 06:00 AM in the morning. The warring parties used to quarrel for a dispute over a piece of land. On the date of occurrence, at 06:00 AM, there was altercation between the parties, upon which when he went there, he saw that free fight by lathi was going on. He came to know from the public that Nagina Ram (deceased) and Surendra Ram have sustained injuries. The deceased was taken to Hospital on a tempo, then he came to know that he had been taken to Patna for treatment and after two days he came to know that deceased had died at Patna.

¶64

21. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he had come to depose in the case on being asked by the informant. He knows the accused persons since they are the co-villagers. He could not see the injuries of the injured since they had fallen.

¶65

22. PW 5, Prabhu Ram, an injured witness, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place around four years ago at 04:00 AM in the morning. He was at his home. The informant (‘X’) had gone out. Accused Ajay Ram molested her, whereafter informant came home and explained everything to them. When they went to Ajay Ram to enquire about it, accused Surendra Ram and Ramji Ram thrashed Nagina Ram (deceased) and started pressing his neck. Accused Ajay Ram armed with kulhari and accused Vijay Ram armed with farsa came, and accused Ajay Ram inflicted kulhari blow on the head of the

¶66

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 12/17

¶67

deceased. Accused Vijay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the shoulder of the deceased behind the neck. Thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting the deceased and the informant by lathi . Ramji Ram assaulted him by lathi on his back. Nagina Ram (deceased) became unconscious and was taken to Majhaulia Hospital, from there he was referred to Bettiah and then to Patna, where he died during the course of treatment. He claimed to identify all the accused.

¶68

23. In his cross-examination, PW 5 deposed that injuries sustained by him was examined by the police and he was treated at Majhaulia Hospital. The occurrence lasted for about 15-20 minutes and around two hundred persons were present at the place of occurrence and name, parentage and address of all of them he cannot tell, but for a few people. He vividly described about of the weapon ( kulhari ). He has deposed that police did not seize the bloodstained soil, clothes or weapon in his presence. He deposed that lavatory has not been provided by the Government in his house nor there is any either inside or outside his house and the female members in whose house lavatory is not there, they use to go outside to defecate. He has deposed that he sustained injuries by lathi and not by farsa-kulhari . He denied that since he is the brother of the deceased, therefore, he is giving false evidence and the accused persons are innocent. He also denied that no such

¶69

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 13/17

¶70

occurrence took place and the accused persons have been implicated in a false case.

¶71

24. PW 7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Nagina Ram. Following ante mortem injuries were found on post mortem examination and dissection: -

¶72

“(i) Stitch wound – 4 cm length present over mid portion of frontal area, 11 cm. From nasal bridge.

¶73

(ii) There was contusion of scalp, which present of extra vessel blood and blood clots underneath of scalp. Both frontal and both parietal area dark reddish in colour. On incision with linear fracture on both side frontal bone-right side 0.5 cm and left side 3.5 cm corresponding tonal suture was separate.

¶74

(iii) There was 5cm x 1 cm commonunited fracture of right side parieto temporal bone V shaped and also linear fracture on left temporal parietal bone of skull 8 cm in length. There was 6 cm x 4 cm extra dural haemotoma present both side cerebral surface and also blood clot present on base of brain.

¶75

Opinion

¶76

(i) Cause of death was cranio cerebral damage resulting from head injury caused by hard and blunt force impact.

¶77

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 14/17

¶78

(ii) Time since death – within 24 hours (approximate) prior to postmortem examination.”

¶79

25. In his cross-examination, PW 7 has deposed that identity card of the deceased was not produced at the time of post mortem. Such injuries can be caused by stone, brick or hard and blunt substance. He has opined that keeping in view the nature of injuries, the same can be caused by hard and blunt long and heavy object or due to falling of any heavy object like brick, wood. No injury caused by any sharp edged weapon was found on the person of the deceased.

¶80

26. It appears that the learned trial court having considered the materials available on the record and the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the place, manner, the date and time of the occurrence as there is contradiction in the account of the witnesses. Though PW 1(the informant), PW 2 (Jagdeo Ram) and PW 5 (Prabhu Ram) had in unison supported the case of the prosecution that accused Ajay Ram inflicted farsa blow on the head of Nagina Ram (deceased) causing injuries, the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence as the injuries of fracture of parietal temporal and left temporal region has been found to have been caused by a hard and blunt substance. The learned trial court

¶81

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 15/17

¶82

has categorically recorded that so far as the evidence with regard to complicity of respondents No. 2 to 4 in the occurrence are concerned, the same are contradictory, misleading and not clear and no corroborative evidence has been produced with regard to the alleged injuries caused by respondents No. 2 to 4 to the fatherin-law of the informant. The learned trial court has while acquitted the respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges levelled against them, it has convicted accused Ajay Ram for the offence under Sections 354 and 302 IPC.

¶83

27. In view of the materials on record, the discussions aforementioned and the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, we are of the view that no perversity or infirmity persists in the impugned judgment with respect to the respondents No. 2 to 4. No interference with the judgment acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 is required.

¶84

28. We are reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein their Lordships have laid down the principles governing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra) is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-

¶85

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 16/17

¶86

“8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment¹ 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 378 CrPC can be summarized as follows:

¶87

8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

¶88

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

¶89

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;

¶90

8.4. 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

¶91

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.”

¶92

29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra) has categorically held that the appellate court can

¶93

1 . Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa , 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591

¶94

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.370 of 2023 dt.19-02-2026 17/17

¶95

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. In the present case, no other conclusion is possible, other than the one taken by the learned trial court.

¶96

30. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶97

31. This appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶98

32. It is made clear that our consideration is limited to the evidences as against respondents No. 2 to 4. The appreciation and observation of this Court shall not cause any prejudice to the case of Ajay Ram.

¶99

33. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial court’s record be sent down to the learned trial court.

¶100

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶101

(Praveen Kumar, J)

¶102

Pawan/-

¶103

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	25.02.2026.
Transmission Date	25.02.2026.

Kaushalya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitish Kumar @ Nimiya Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Usha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Sarfaraz @ Muzaffar Ahmad Wani Vs The Union of India through National Investigation Agency

Md. Nazar Saddam Vs The National Investigation Agency

Sahina Khatoon Vs the State of Bihar