Case Background
The case arises from Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 7 of 2022, District Rohtas. The FIR was based on the fardbeyan of Himanshu Kumar @ Pradeep Rao, recorded on 07.01.2022 at 9:05 a.m. in the ICU of Karuna Hospital, Bikramganj, Ara Road.
According to the fardbeyan, on 06.01.2022 at about 7:30 p.m., the informant was at his house at Krishnanagar, Ward No. 7, Bikramganj, when his friend Rahul Kumar @ Banti (later deceased) came to call him. After informing his mother, the informant went with Rahul towards Rahul’s house.
On the way, near Modern I.T.I, they allegedly met Nitish Kumar and Rockey Kumar (Respondent No. 2). Rahul introduced them to the informant. All four went to a vacant flat below Rahul’s flat and sat there talking.
The informant stated that at about 9:30 p.m. his mother called him and asked him to return home, but the others asked him to stay the night. Nitish and Rockey brought lassi, which all four consumed, and the two friends, Rahul and the informant, fell asleep around 10:00 p.m.
Around 12:30 a.m., the informant claimed he woke up to find blood on his face and oozing from his head. He also saw a large wound on Rahul’s head and blood near the pillow. Nitish and Rockey were allegedly missing, the door was open, and they had fled.
The informant went upstairs, raised alarm and allegedly told Rahul’s mother and sister that Nitish and Rockey had shot Rahul and escaped. Rahul’s relatives took both Rahul and the informant by ambulance to Karuna Hospital. Rahul was declared dead, while the informant was treated for his injuries. The informant expressed his belief that Nitish and Rockey had shot him and killed Rahul.
On this fardbeyan, Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 7/2022 was registered on 07.01.2022 at 9:45 a.m. under Sections 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Nitish Kumar and Rockey Kumar (Respondent No. 2).
After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022 against Nitish Kumar @ Shubham @ Bholu, Rockey @ Rohit Kumar (Respondent No. 2), and a non-FIR named accused, Prince Kumar (Respondent No. 3) under Sections 307, 302, 120B IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 30.09.2022 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bikramganj, and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 527 of 2022. On 19.11.2022, charges were framed against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who pleaded not guilty and faced trial.
During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses: P.W.1 Vaibhav Kumar, P.W.2 Chandani Kumari @ Pooja Kumari (sister of the deceased), P.W.3 Muskan Kumari (sister of the deceased), and P.W.4 Kushum Kumar Keshari (Investigating Officer).
Some documents were produced as exhibits, including the inquest report of the deceased, a seizure list of suspected blood, fired bullets and two country-made pistols, an iPhone of Respondent No. 3, and the charge-sheet.
Despite repeated notice, the doctor who treated the informant and performed post-mortem on Rahul did not appear before the trial court. A non-bailable warrant was issued on 07.10.2024, and the SHO was directed to file an execution report. On 19.10.2024, the prosecution itself applied to close its evidence, stating that all factual witnesses had turned hostile and further proceedings were pointless. The trial court allowed the request and closed prosecution evidence.
Statements of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2024; they maintained innocence. On 30.10.2024, the District and Additional Sessions Judge-XIX, Sasaram, Rohtas acquitted both accused of all charges.
The deceased’s mother, Manju Devi, filed this Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 462 of 2025 before the Patna High Court under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the acquittal judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava, heard the appeal and examined whether the acquittal required interference.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court failed to ensure examination of two important witnesses: the doctor, and the deceased’s mother Manju Devi (the appellant herself). He also relied on parts of the evidence of P.W.2 Chandani Kumari. The trial judge had asked her whether she would speak the truth if safety was guaranteed. She became silent, her eyes filled with tears, yet she maintained she had spoken the truth. When the court suggested she was not doing justice to her brother, she shook her head indicating “No”.
On this basis, the appellant argued that the witnesses were under fear or pressure, the investigation by the IO was defective, and therefore the acquittal was erroneous and should be set aside.
The State and defence counsel countered that there was no perversity in the trial court’s judgment. They argued that the view taken by the trial court was indeed a reasonable and probable one, especially when the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court carefully examined the trial court judgment, the oral and documentary evidence on record, and the submissions of all parties.
It noted first that all three non-official prosecution witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) had been declared hostile. P.W.1 Vaibhav Kumar stated that he had no knowledge of the occurrence and that no police officer recorded his statement about it.
P.W.2 Chandani Kumari, in cross-examination, clearly stated that she had not seen anyone fire on her brother. She also stated that the informant did not tell them who had fired at the deceased, and that she could not say how many people were sleeping downstairs that night.
She added that they heard the sound of gunshot at about 11:00 p.m., and about ten minutes later the informant came upstairs. He was not hit by gunshot, but blood was coming from his head. She also said he did not go to the hospital with them.
In paragraph 13 of her cross-examination, she stated that the informant told her the persons who fired at her brother had hit him on the head with a revolver, causing his head to bleed, but he did not disclose the name of that person.
P.W.3 Muskan Kumari also turned hostile. In response to a court question, she said she neither knew nor recognised Rockey and Nitish. In paragraph 8 of her cross-examination, she stated that she suspected the informant Himanshu had killed her brother because he did not come to give his statement on the date of occurrence.
Regarding the IO, P.W.4 Kushum Kumar Keshari, the court recorded that he proved the fardbeyan, FIR, inquest report, seizure list of suspected blood sample, fired bullet, two country-made pistols, one iPhone of Prince Kumar, and the charge-sheet dated 05.04.2022.
However, in cross-examination, the IO admitted he had not recorded statements of neighbours living near the place of occurrence and had not seized anything from the spot, despite the seizure list being on record. In paragraph 14 of his cross-examination, he stated that the informant and the deceased used to send vulgar WhatsApp messages to the sister of Prince Kumar (Respondent No. 3) and that the informant had criminal antecedents.
From this material, the High Court noted that there was no true eye-witness account supporting the prosecution story. The informant, although projected as a surviving victim and prime witness in the FIR, was not examined in trial in the evidence before the High Court.
The Court highlighted that P.W.2 and P.W.3 showed that, despite the informant claiming to have seen the shooting and to have been hit with the butt of a pistol, he never disclosed the names of the assailants to them. This created serious doubt about his version.
The suspicion of P.W.3 that the informant himself might have killed her brother, together with the IO’s disclosure about vulgar messages sent to the sister of Prince Kumar, further damaged the prosecution case.
The Court also considered the physical circumstances. It found it difficult to believe that, if the accused had killed Rahul and attacked the informant with a pistol butt, they would leave two country-made pistols at the scene yet allow the informant to remain alive as a witness against them.
This led the Court to observe that “there is something more than what meets the eye” and that the informant appeared to have cooked up a story far from the truth, suppressing the actual mode and manner of occurrence.
As to Respondent No. 3 Prince Kumar, the Court noted that his name did not appear at all in the fardbeyan which led to the FIR, and none of the examined witnesses named either Rockey or Prince as perpetrators. Thus, there was virtually no evidence against them.
Another crucial deficiency was that no post-mortem report had been exhibited in evidence. The High Court agreed with the trial court that this attracted a presumption against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even the basic fact that the deceased had died due to bullet injuries was not proved through medical evidence.
On the legal standard for interfering with an acquittal, the Court relied on several Supreme Court decisions: Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2023) 6 SCC 605; Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2022) 3 SCC 471; and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149.
Summarising these precedents, the Court reiterated that an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court’s findings are perverse, illegal, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view of guilt is sustainable.
After applying these principles, the Patna High Court concluded that the trial judge’s findings were neither perverse nor impossible. There was no omission to consider material evidence, and the conclusions were not manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
Given the hostile witnesses, absence of medical proof, doubtful conduct and statements of the informant, lack of credible investigation, and total failure to link the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable view.
Therefore, it refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of victims and for criminal law practice in Bihar. It shows that even in serious offences like murder and attempt to murder, conviction is not automatic. Courts require clear, reliable evidence.
If key witnesses turn hostile, the medical evidence is not produced, and the investigation leaves major gaps, higher courts are unlikely to overturn an acquittal. The Patna High Court emphasised that doubts about the real incident and the role of the accused must go in favour of the accused.
The ruling also underlines that an appeal against acquittal is not a fresh trial. Unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse, the appellate court will not interfere. This protects accused persons from repeated harassment once they have been acquitted after full trial.
For complainants and their lawyers, the case highlights the need to ensure that crucial witnesses, especially doctors and eye-witnesses, are actually examined in court and that their evidence is consistent. For investigating officers, it is a reminder to record statements of neighbours and secure medical and forensic evidence properly.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Should the Patna High Court interfere with and set aside the trial court’s acquittal of the accused under Sections 307, 302, 120B IPC and Section 27 Arms Act?
Answer: No. The Court held that the trial court’s findings were not perverse or illegal, there was no reliable evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was a reasonable and probable view which did not warrant interference.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 6 SCC 605.
- Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Sharma v. The State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2623.
- Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2022) 3 SCC 471.
- Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 462 of 2025; arising out of Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 7 of 2022, District Rohtas; Sessions Trial No. 527 of 2022.
Case Title: Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar & Others.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 17.12.2025.
Impugned Judgment: Judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-XIX, Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 527 of 2022.
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 471.
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P.
- For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
- For Respondent No. 3: Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an order of acquittal in a sessions trial for offences under Sections 307/34, 302/34, 120B IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
