Case Background
This criminal appeal was filed by the informant of Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 2007, arising from an incident in village Agarwa, Motihari, East Champaran. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about 9:30 p.m. on 18.06.2007. The informant stated that he was sitting in the corridor of his house with his family when four named accused arrived armed with weapons, abused them, and demanded Rs. 25,000/-.
According to the fardbeyan recorded on 19.06.2007 at Sadar Hospital, Motihari by ASI Mundrika Prasad, one of the accused allegedly struck the informant’s son Arjun Kumar on the head with a farsa. The informant further alleged that other accused caught hold of him, called two more persons, and that one of them attacked him with a spear with intent to kill, causing an injury on his elbow. He claimed he was also beaten with lathi, danda and fists, and that his nose bled while his son became unconscious and fell on the ground.
The informant further alleged that the accused then entered his house, broke the lock of a box and took away ornaments. On his alarm, neighbours including Ajay Raut, Sanjay Raut and Adhikari Devi allegedly reached the spot, on seeing whom the accused fled.
On this basis, Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 2007 was registered against five persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 379, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, however, charge-sheet was submitted only against two accused. The police did not send up two others for trial, and one named accused had died.
The Magistrate nevertheless took cognizance not only against the two charge-sheeted accused but also against the two not sent up, and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Sections 379, 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against four accused. They pleaded not guilty.
After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Champaran at Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2010 (CIS No. 2228 of 2016), by judgment and order dated 22.07.2023, convicted three accused under Section 323 IPC and one accused under Section 324 IPC. All four were acquitted of the more serious charges under Sections 307 and 379 IPC. Instead of sending them to jail, the trial court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to all convicts.
Aggrieved, the informant filed this criminal appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2023 before the Patna High Court. He challenged both the acquittal on the graver charges and the grant of probation, seeking conviction under Sections 307 and 379 IPC and imprisonment instead of probation.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court first heard the arguments of the informant’s counsel, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and counsel for the private respondents.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the injured and other prosecution witnesses. According to him, the material on record showed a violent attack with a farsa and a spear, and theft of ornaments from the house. He contended that this made out offences under Sections 307 and 379 IPC, and that the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused of these charges. He further submitted that, in such circumstances, the convicts should not have been granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act but should have been sentenced to appropriate imprisonment.
On the other side, the State and the private respondents supported the trial court’s judgment. They submitted that, looking at the medical and oral evidence together, the requirements of Sections 307 and 379 IPC were not proved. They argued that the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, should interfere only if the trial court’s view is unreasonable or perverse. If two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not replace the trial court’s view with its own.
They also raised a preliminary objection: that the informant had no right in law to challenge the “inadequate sentence” or the grant of probation. Under Section 377 CrPC, only the State can appeal for enhancement of sentence. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which gives a right of appeal to the victim, is limited to three situations—acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. It does not cover complaints about the quantum of sentence or the grant of probation.
The High Court agreed with this preliminary objection. It carefully examined the wording of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and held that a victim can appeal only if (i) the accused has been acquitted, or (ii) convicted of a lesser offence, or (iii) inadequate compensation has been imposed. There is no statutory right given to the victim to appeal on the ground that the sentence is too light.
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 496. The Supreme Court there had clearly held that a victim’s right of appeal under Section 372 CrPC is limited to the three situations mentioned in the proviso, and that there is no right to challenge the adequacy of sentence. Only the State Government may prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377 CrPC. The High Court noted that the remedy of appeal is purely a creation of statute; without a statutory provision, no appeal lies.
Applying this, the High Court concluded that the informant’s challenge to the grant of probation and alleged inadequacy of sentence was not maintainable. As grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act is also not mentioned as a ground under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the informant could not question that part of the order. Therefore, the Court stated it could not examine the legality or propriety of the probation order at the informant’s instance.
Next, the Court turned to the appeal insofar as it challenged the acquittal under Sections 307 and 379 IPC. It reviewed the principles governing appeals against acquittal, relying on several Supreme Court decisions including Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Murugesan v. State, H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka. These judgments lay down that:
- Acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.
- The appellate court can reappreciate evidence, but should respect a reasonable view taken by the trial court.
- Interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, and when only a conclusion of guilt is possible.
With these standards in mind, the Bench examined the prosecution evidence. The informant (P.W.5) and injured son Arjun Prasad (P.W.1) broadly supported the version in the fardbeyan in their examination-in-chief. The wife (P.W.2) and two other sons (P.W.3 and P.W.4) also supported the prosecution in chief. However, in cross-examination, important weaknesses emerged.
The informant admitted that only his family members were present at the time of occurrence and no neighbours were present, despite the allegation in the fardbeyan that several neighbours arrived on hulla. He also conceded that he was assaulted only once and that the accused had lodged a criminal case against him as well.
P.W.1 Arjun Prasad denied any land dispute and rejected the suggestion of a counter case, but the defence elicited that there was in fact a criminal case lodged by the accused side, as admitted by P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.W.2 confessed that she did not remember the police recording her statement, suggesting that her detailed account in court was being stated for the first time.
Crucially, P.W.3 Santosh Kumar and P.W.4 Jagdish Prasad admitted in cross-examination that when they reached the place of occurrence, the accused had already fled and Arjun was lying injured on the ground. This meant they were not eye-witnesses to the assault itself, though in chief they had supported the prosecution’s version.
The medical evidence given by P.W.6 Dr. Alok Kumar was equally important. He examined Arjun Kumar and found one incised wound in the mid-scalp, 3” x 0.25” x skin deep, caused by a sharp weapon. X-ray, however, revealed no bone injury. He categorised this as a simple injury. He found one lacerated wound on the upper part of the right side of the informant’s face, 1” x 0.25” x skin deep, caused by a hard and blunt object, also simple in nature. In cross-examination, he stated that Arjun’s injury could have been caused by a sharp-edged stone and that skin-deep injuries are superficial. He also said the informant’s injury could have been caused by a fall.
To decide whether the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC was made out, the High Court discussed Supreme Court guidance in Sagayam v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 4 SCC 454 and Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444. These cases explain that for Section 307 IPC, mere injury is not enough; there must be intention to cause death, gathered from factors like the nature of the weapon, the part of body targeted, force used, number of blows, surrounding circumstances and so on.
Looking at the evidence, the Bench found that both injuries were simple and even superficial, with no bone damage or deep wounds. Only one injury was found on each person. From this, the Court held that the necessary intention or mens rea to commit murder was missing. Without such intention, Section 307 IPC could not apply.
Regarding the theft charge under Section 379 IPC, the High Court noted that the allegation of breaking open a box and taking ornaments had not been backed up with details in evidence. No specific description of the ornaments or stolen property was provided at trial. The Court therefore found the allegation “superfluous” and held that theft was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On this analysis, the trial court’s decision to convict only for simple hurt under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and to acquit under Sections 307 and 379 IPC was found to be a possible and reasonable view based on the record. It did not suffer from perversity or non-consideration of material evidence.
Since no ground for interference with the acquittal was made out, and the victim’s appeal against probation and sentence was not maintainable, the High Court dismissed the appeal in full and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2023.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for victims and complainants who wish to challenge trial court outcomes in criminal cases in Bihar and elsewhere.
First, the Patna High Court has made it clear that a victim’s right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is limited. A victim can challenge an acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence, or the inadequacy of compensation. But a victim cannot seek enhancement of sentence or question the grant of probation. Only the State can appeal for harsher punishment under Section 377 CrPC.
Second, the judgment shows how higher courts look at appeals against acquittal. Even if the complainant feels strongly that more serious offences like attempt to murder or theft were made out, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial court’s view is clearly unreasonable or perverse. If simple injuries and gaps in evidence support a lesser charge like simple hurt, the acquittal on graver charges is likely to stand.
Third, the case underlines the importance of medical evidence and detailed proof of loss. Where injuries are superficial and simple, courts are reluctant to treat them as attempts to murder. Similarly, theft allegations must be supported by specific details of the articles alleged to have been stolen.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a victim or informant appeal against the trial court’s grant of probation or alleged inadequacy of sentence?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, a victim has no right to appeal on these grounds. Only the State can appeal for enhancement of sentence under Section 377 CrPC. - Issue: Was the trial court wrong in acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 307 and 379 IPC?
Answer: No. The High Court found that the injuries were simple and superficial, there was no clear intention to kill, and the theft allegation lacked details. The trial court’s view acquitting the accused of these charges was a reasonable and possible view and could not be disturbed in appeal. - Issue: When can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal?
Answer: Only when the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, and when no reasonable view of innocence is possible. If two views are possible, the appellate court must respect the trial court’s acquittal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 496
- Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 40
- Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415
- Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383
- H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581
- Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561
- Sagayam v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 4 SCC 454
- Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 923 of 2023
Case Title: Ram Ekbal Raut @ Ram Ekbal Prasad @ Ekbal Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 61
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: 21.08.2024
Trial Court Judgment Challenged: Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2010 (CIS No. 2228 of 2016), arising out of Town P.S. Case No. 160 of 2007
Advocates:
- For the Appellant (informant): Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate; Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, APP
- For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (accused/convicts): Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (victim’s/informant’s appeal) challenging acquittal on certain charges and grant of probation in a sessions trial for offences under the Indian Penal Code
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
