Authored By Kiran Raj

The Patna High Court, in Brij Bihari Ray v. The State of Bihar and Others (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 2021), dismissed an appeal challenging the acquittal of three women accused of murder in a case stemming from an altercation in 1997. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Jitendra Kumar upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of medical evidence to corroborate the alleged injuries leading to the victim's death.

The case arose from an incident where the deceased, Dudhnath Rai, allegedly sustained fatal injuries during an altercation. The prosecution alleged that the respondents, identified as Manjharo Devi, Dularo Devi, and Phool Kumari Devi, threw bricks at the deceased during the altercation, causing injuries that led to the death. The Fast Track Court-II, Bhojpur at Ara, had earlier acquitted the respondents, citing contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and the failure to produce critical medical and forensic evidence.

The High Court examined the evidence presented during the trial and found that the informant’s testimony contradicted his initial fardbeyan (statement given in wiriting) which stated that the altercation arose from a dispute over plucking mangoes. The informant’s testimony during the trial attributed the incident to a land dispute. The Court observed, “The informant in his fardbeyan has stated that the occurrence had taken place on account of altercation in connection with plucking of mangoes. However, in his testimony, he introduced a different narrative, attributing the incident to a land dispute, which raises significant contradictions.”

Further, the Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to produce essential medical evidence. Neither the doctor who conducted the autopsy nor any formal witness was examined to bring the postmortem report or any injury report of the deceased on record by making such reports as exhibits. The Court noted, “Oral evidence of general witnesses is not sufficient to prove the homicidal death on account of the alleged assault. It is only by a witness, expert in medical science, can opine regarding the nature of the injury and whether the death of the deceased was caused by such injury. In the absence of such evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the homicidal death.”

The Court also reviewed the principles governing appellate jurisdiction in cases of acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023). The Bench stated, “If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view based on the evidence on record, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal merely because another view was also possible.”

Additionally, the Court examined other witness testimonies and noted discrepancies regarding the roles of the accused. Some witnesses claimed that the respondents were throwing bricks, while others failed to specify the injuries caused or to identify those injured. Moreover, the incomplete cross-examination of the investigating officer further weakened the prosecution's case.

The High Court concluded that the findings of the trial court were reasonable and based on the available evidence, with no illegality or infirmity warranting interference. The Court held, “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt is a reasonable and possible view. There is no requirement to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.”

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was upheld.

Case Title: Brij Bihari Ray v. The State of Bihar and Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 2021
Bench Details: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Jitendra Kumar

[Read/Download order]