The Patna High Court, in this decision, reaffirmed that appellate interference with acquittals is justified only in cases of clear perversity or unreasonableness in the trial court’s findings, following established Supreme Court precedents. This judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority within its territorial jurisdiction, solidifying key standards for criminal appeals against acquittal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR. APP (DB)/647/2024 of Laxmeshwar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar |
| CNR | BRHC010548782024 |
| Date of Registration | 27-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA (Concurring) |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma, JJ.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court; persuasive value elsewhere. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents on limited appellate interference with acquittals. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Criminal Evidence |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should interfere with an acquittal by the trial court in the absence of perversity or illegality in the findings, and what standards govern such interference in criminal appeals. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The informant’s brother was allegedly murdered after an altercation related to a love affair. The FIR implicated specific accused, invoking IPC sections 302, 120B, and Arms Act sections. During trial, key witnesses turned hostile, there was contradiction between family members, and the informant died before examination. The investigating officer failed to examine important witnesses, and there was absence of independent witnesses. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the appellate court found no perversity in the original judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there is clear perversity, illegality, or unreasonableness in the trial court’s findings.
- Presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an acquittal.
- Hostile witness testimony should only be accepted in so far as credible support exists; otherwise, it cannot be relied on.
- Non-examination of material independent witnesses can trigger an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) Evidence Act.
- Contradictions between statements of close relatives on material particulars can be fatal to prosecution.
- The mere possibility of alternate views on evidence does not justify overturning an acquittal.
- Lawyers should marshal evidence of investigative lapses, witness hostility, or contradictions to defend against appeals from acquittals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first analyzed whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or illegal, as is required for appellate interference.
- It was held that the informant’s presence at the occurrence was doubtful, and his claim as an eye-witness was untested due to his death during trial; the FIR could not substitute for his examination.
- All major prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case; the court clarified that hostile witness evidence is admissible only as far as credible, citing State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani.
- The court noted major contradictions between family members’ testimonies as to the events, place, and time of occurrence, undermining the prosecution’s credibility.
- The investigating officer admitted to omitting recordings of critical witnesses during the investigation, constituting a significant lapse.
- The prosecution did not produce any independent witnesses, though available, inviting adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, as per Takhaji Hiraji.
- Motive for commission of the crime was not established, which was significant in view of weak direct evidence.
- The court relied on Supreme Court decisions (Mrinal Das, Ghurey Lal) to clarify that appellate courts should interfere with acquittals only if findings are perverse or wholly unsustainable; the advantage of the trial court’s observation of witnesses’ demeanor warrants deference.
- On cumulative assessment, the court found evidence unreliable, the prosecution case unproved beyond doubt, and the acquittal justified.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The trial court failed to consider the evidence of PW9, who supported the ‘last seen’ theory and established motive arising from a love affair.
- Although witnesses PW1 to PW7 turned hostile at trial, their prior statements under Section 161 CrPC supported the prosecution.
- The deceased identified his assailants during investigation to certain witnesses.
- The investigating officer established the place of occurrence.
- The trial court erroneously held that prosecution failed to prove guilt, making the acquittal unsustainable.
Respondent (State):
- No perversity in the trial court’s judgment.
- The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court.
- The order of acquittal requires no interference.
Factual Background
On 07.04.2019, the brother of the informant was shot near the Polytechnic College while returning home on a motorcycle. The FIR alleged a conspiracy arising from a love affair and implicated several accused persons. The investigating agency charged two accused under sections of the IPC and Arms Act. During trial, majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the informant died before deposition, and independent witness examination was lacking. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the appeal was filed by the informant’s father.
Statutory Analysis
- The court discussed Section 372 CrPC (appeal against acquittal), limiting interference to cases of perversity or unreasonableness in the trial court’s findings.
- Section 313 CrPC (examination of accused) procedure was noted.
- The role of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act was analyzed regarding adverse inference for non-examination of available material witnesses.
- The principle that FIR is not substantive evidence, but only corroborative or contradictory per Sections 157 and 145 of the Evidence Act, was reiterated.
- The necessity to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law was emphasized.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissent. Both judges concurred in the reasoning and conclusion.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and follows established Supreme Court precedent on appellate interference with acquittals.