Case Background
This case arises from the death of one Tarkeshwar Singh of Village Patila, Kopa, District Saran. On 2 July 2007, his father Ganesh Singh (later examined as PW‑3) gave a fardbeyan to the local police. He alleged that the dead body of his son had been found in a field, partly buried and eaten by dogs.
According to him, on 27 June 2007 at about 9:00 p.m., their co‑villager Rajesh Ram came to the house and took Tarkeshwar with him on the pretext of attending the marriage of the daughter of another villager, Bharat Sah. Later that night, the informant claimed he saw his son and Rajesh Ram along with others sitting on three motorcycles near the house of one Sudama Sah and then going away towards the west of the village.
When Tarkeshwar did not return, the informant says he made enquiries from Rajesh Ram on 28 June and again on 30 June 2007. Rajesh Ram allegedly replied that the victim would return in a few days. On 2 July 2007, the informant heard villagers shouting that dogs were pulling out a dead body that had been buried in the field of one Bali Thakur between the plots of Bali Thakur and Gajnath Prasad. He went there with his grandson Rajan (PW‑1) and Kundan Singh (PW‑4), saw a decomposed human skeleton with torn clothes and a chain, and claimed to identify it as his son.
On this basis, Kopa P.S. Case No. 54 of 2007 was registered under Sections 302, 120B, 201/34 IPC against six named persons and four unknown. However, after investigation, police submitted Charge‑sheet No. 74 of 2007 dated 26 October 2007 only against Rajesh Ram for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B/34 IPC. Investigation against the other named persons remained open.
On 29 October 2007, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, took cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court. On 12 January 2008, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑Special MP/MLA/MLC Court, Saran at Chhapra framed charges against Rajesh Ram under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120B IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including family members, the informant, the doctor who conducted the post‑mortem, and the investigating officer. Various documents such as the fardbeyan, inquest report, post‑mortem report, formal FIR and charge‑sheet were exhibited.
After trial, the learned Sessions Court acquitted Rajesh Ram on 28 March 2023. It held that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death, failed to establish the “last seen” theory, failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence, and failed to prove motive. The Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The present criminal appeal (DB) No. 517 of 2023 was filed by the wife of the deceased, who is also the daughter‑in‑law of the informant, under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against this acquittal. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh, decided the appeal by judgment dated 2 April 2026.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court closely examined the entire trial record, including the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents proved in court. It also considered the arguments advanced by both sides in this appeal.
On behalf of the appellant (victim), senior counsel argued that the trial court had wrongly discarded the consistent testimonies of PW‑1 Rajan Kumar, PW‑2 Munindra Singh and PW‑3 Ganesh Singh. According to the appellant, these witnesses clearly showed that Rajesh Ram had taken the deceased from his house, that the deceased was last seen with Rajesh Ram and other accused on motorcycles, and that Rajesh Ram later gave misleading assurances about the deceased returning soon. The appellant contended that these facts, taken together, should have been enough to prove the “last seen” theory and to shift the burden on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain what happened to the deceased.
The appellant further argued that at least three of the six originally named accused had admitted in their statements to the investigating officer that they were on bad terms with the deceased, which showed motive. It was also argued that the dead body was recovered within one kilometre of the village, strengthening the chain of circumstances.
On the other side, counsel for the State and for the private respondent supported the acquittal. They submitted that this was purely a case of circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness to the killing. They argued that the prosecution had failed to establish each link of the chain beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
The defence particularly challenged the “last seen” theory and the alleged identification of the dead body. They pointed out that there was a gap of five days between the alleged last seen (27 June) and the discovery of the decomposed body (2 July), and no evidence of what happened in between. They relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, to say that conviction cannot be based merely on “last seen” without other strong connecting circumstances or proof of motive.
The High Court first examined the evidence of the informant PW‑3, who was the father of the deceased. He deposed that on 27 June 2007, Rajesh Ram came to his house around 9:00 p.m. and took his son to attend the marriage of Bharat Sah’s daughter. PW‑3 claimed that he himself went to the marriage with his grandsons PW‑1 and PW‑2. After dinner, he allegedly saw his son and the accused with others on three motorcycles near the house of Sudama Sah, and saw them drive away.
He further stated that when the deceased did not return, he went alone to Rajesh Ram’s house on 28 June and 30 June 2007. On both visits, Rajesh Ram allegedly told him that the deceased would return within a few days. On 2 July 2007, upon hearing that a dead body had been found, PW‑3 went to the field of Bali Thakur and identified the decomposed body as that of his son, mainly on the basis of a chain on the neck.
In cross‑examination, however, PW‑3 revealed several weaknesses. He wrongly stated that he had lodged the case and given his statement to police on 27 June 2007 itself, which was clearly inconsistent with the record showing registration on 2 July 2007. He admitted that he never reported his son missing to any police officer or court before the body was found. He further admitted that there was no previous enmity between his son and Rajesh Ram. He also said that the dead body was so decomposed that the face was not recognisable and most parts had been eaten by dogs. Importantly, he conceded that although the chain on the neck was the only basis for his identification, the police did not prepare any seizure list for that chain.
The High Court found this conduct and evidence unnatural and unreliable. It considered it unnatural that a father, whose adult son had been missing for several days after going out with others at night, would not give any missing report. The Court also found the identification of the body doubtful because the body was in an advanced state of decomposition and the only alleged identifying item (the chain) was not seized or produced in evidence.
The Court then looked at the evidence of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑4, who were close relatives. They merely supported PW‑3 and did not add any independent facts. The Court treated their evidence cautiously, as they were interested witnesses and their version was not corroborated by any neutral villagers.
A key missing witness was Bharat Sah, in whose house the marriage was said to have taken place. The investigating officer (PW‑7) stated that he had recorded the statement of Bharat Sah and other witnesses who supported the story, but the prosecution did not examine Bharat Sah in court. The High Court held that he would have been a material witness to confirm whether the informant, his grandsons and the deceased had in fact attended the marriage and whether any of the accused were present there. His non‑examination created a serious gap.
The Court also examined the testimony of PW‑7, the Station House Officer of Kopa Police Station who investigated the case. He described finding a ditch in the field containing a human skeleton in a decomposed condition. He admitted that there was no flesh on the skeleton and that nobody told him they had seen the occurrence. He also said there was no mention of any prior enmity between the deceased and Rajesh Ram in the case diary.
The medical evidence of PW‑5, Dr. Umesh Sharma, further weakened the case. The doctor found that the body was in an advanced state of decomposition. The skull had no skin or muscles; only bones were present. The right forearm and both hands were absent. Upper half of the body had almost turned into skeleton. The lungs and heart were absent. Only putrefied kidney and stomach were present, and the stomach was empty. Crucially, the doctor could not give any opinion on the cause of death. He also stated that the body could not be recognised by the face and that it had been “recognised” by villagers including a chowkidar, who was never examined in court.
On this material, the High Court agreed with the trial court that homicidal death itself was not proved. Without establishing that the deceased had been murdered, the prosecution case under Section 302 IPC could not stand.
Turning to the “last seen” theory, the High Court noted that the alleged last seen was on the night of 27 June, while the body was found on 2 July. There was a long gap of five days, and the prosecution had not produced any evidence of events during this period. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Kanhaiya Lal, the Court reiterated that conviction cannot rest solely on last seen. The time gap must be so small and the chain of events so complete that no other reasonable possibility remains. In this case, the gap and missing links made that impossible.
The Court also observed that there was no reliable evidence of motive. PW‑3 himself had admitted that there was no prior enmity between his son and the accused, and the investigating officer had also stated that he was unaware of any previous enmity or criminal antecedents.
In light of all these circumstances, the High Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not point only to the guilt of Rajesh Ram. The prosecution had failed on essential requirements: proving homicidal death, proving identity of the body beyond doubt, proving motive, and proving a continuous chain from last seen to recovery of the body.
The Court then reminded itself of the special principles governing appeals against acquittal, as summarised by the Supreme Court in H.D. Sundara and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581. It noted that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; that an appellate court can re‑appreciate evidence but can interfere only if the view taken by the trial court is not even a possible view and the only conclusion must be guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court concluded that the trial court’s view acquitting the accused was certainly a possible and reasonable view on the evidence. There was no perversity in the findings. As the Court could not reach an “irresistible conclusion” about the guilt of the accused, it refused to overturn the acquittal.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the victim’s wife was dismissed, and the acquittal of Rajesh Ram under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120B/34 IPC was affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of victims and for criminal cases based mainly on suspicion or incomplete circumstantial evidence.
First, the Patna High Court clearly shows that courts cannot convict a person for murder unless every key fact is properly proved. Mere suspicion or strong feelings of the family are not enough. Even if someone was last seen with the deceased, that fact alone does not make him a murderer.
Second, the decision highlights the need to prove that the dead body is actually that of the missing person and that the death was homicidal. If the body is decomposed and identification is doubtful, and if the doctor cannot say the cause of death, courts will be slow to hold anyone guilty of murder.
Third, the judgment underlines that in appeals against acquittal, higher courts will interfere only when the trial court’s decision is clearly unreasonable. If two views are possible and the trial court has chosen one that favours the accused, the High Court will normally not disturb that finding.
For ordinary readers, the message is that in serious criminal cases, good investigation and solid, independent evidence are crucial. Delay in lodging missing reports, failure to examine key witnesses, and weak medical evidence can completely break a case, even if the family feels sure about who is responsible.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the decomposed body found on 2 July 2007 was that of the deceased Tarkeshwar Singh and that he died a homicidal death.
Answer: No. The medical evidence showed an advanced stage of decomposition, the cause of death could not be given, and identification was doubtful as the only claimed identifying item (a chain) was not seized or proved. - Issue: Whether the “last seen” circumstances and other evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of accused Rajesh Ram under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120B/34 IPC.
Answer: No. There was a five‑day gap between last seen and recovery of the body, intervening events were not proved, motive was not established, and key independent witnesses were not examined, so the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. - Issue: Whether the Patna High Court should interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal in an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Answer: No. Applying Supreme Court guidelines on appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a reasonable possible view on the evidence, and the presumption of innocence stood strengthened; therefore, the acquittal could not be overturned.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – on the standard and chain of proof in circumstantial evidence cases.
- Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 – on limits of “last seen together” theory and need for additional connecting circumstances and motive.
- H.D. Sundara and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 – on principles governing interference with acquittal in appeal under Section 378 CrPC.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 517 of 2023; arising out of Kopa P.S. Case No. 54 of 2007; Sessions Trial No. 552 of 2007.
Case Title: Renu Devi @ Renu Kunwar v. The State of Bihar & Rajesh Ram.
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 167.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh.
Advocates: For the appellant (victim): Mr. Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP. For the private respondent (accused): Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anjani Parashar, Advocate; Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate; Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Victim’s criminal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence.
Link to Judgment: Full text of 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.
