Ranjis Chauhan @ Ranjish Chauhan vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.101 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2022 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
Ranjis Chauhan @ Ranjish Chauhan S/O Late Parmeshar Chauhan @
Parmeshwar Chauhan Resident of Village- Oraina, P.S.- Meskaur, District-
Nawada
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pancha Chauhan S/O Koi Chauhan R/O Village- Oraina, P.S- Meskaur,
Distt.- Nawada.
3. Jiryodhan @ Duryodhan Chauhan S/O Karu Chauhan R/O Village- Oraina,
P.S- Meskaur, Distt.- Nawada.
4. Sonu Kumar S/O Jairam Chauhan R/O Village- Chora, P.S- Sirdalla, Distt.-
Nawada.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Arjun Prasad No. 1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 03-09-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellant (informant) and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused
the trial court’s records.
2. The present criminal appeal under proviso to Section
413 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as 'B.N.S.S.') arises out of the judgment dated

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
2/15
04.12.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’)
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nawada
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) in Session
Trial No. 42 of 2023, arising out of Sirdalla (Meskaur) P.S. Case
No. 280 of 2022, G.R. No. 1048 of 2022 by which the Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of all the charges.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the informant, namely, Ranjis Chauhan @ Ranjish
Chauhan submitted on 03.06.2022. The informant alleged that his
son, namely, Bablu Kumar had been taken away by the three
named accused, namely, Pancha Chauhan (respondent no. 2),
Jiryodhan @ Duryodhan Chauhan (respondent no. 3) and Sonu
Kumar (respondent no. 4) at around 06:30 PM who did not return
till today. The informant alleged that on query, the accused persons
told him that his son was left at his house who did not return. On
search, the informant could not trace his son.
4. On the basis of this written information, Sirdalla
(Meskaur) P.S. Case No. 280 of 2022 dated 03.06.2022 was
registered under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). Later on Sections 302, 201 of the
IPC were also added. After investigation, the police submitted a

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
3/15
charge sheet vide charge sheet No. 616 of 2022 dated 25.08.2022
against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Sections 364, 302, 201,
34 of the IPC. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.11.2022
took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302,
364, 201/34 IPC against respondent nos. 2 to 4.
5. Charges were read over and explained to all the
accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be
tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 07.02.2023, charges were
framed against the accused persons under Sections 346/34, 302/34,
201/34 IPC.
6. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined
as many as eight witnesses and exhibited various documentary
evidences. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the
list of documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution are
provided hereunder for ready reference in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
Prosecution
Witness No.
Name of witness Description
PW1 Lalan Kumar @ Lalan
Chauhan
Hearsay witness
PW2 Pankaj Kumar Hearsay witness/ brother of
the deceased
PW3 Laxminiya Devi Hearsay witness
PW4 Ranjis Chauhan Informant of this case
PW5 Krishna Chauhan @ Krishna
Singh
Panch witness
PW6 Parshuram Kumar Panch witness
PW7 Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar Medical witness

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
4/15
PW8 Rajkumar I.O.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit No. Description Proved by/ Attested by
Exhibit-P-1 Signature of informant over
written application given to
S.H.O.
P.W.04
Exhibit-P-2 Signature of Krishna Chauhan
@ Krishna Singh over inquest
report (photocopy)
P.W. 05 (with objection)
Exhibit-P-2/1 Signature of Parshuram Kumar
over inquest report
(photocopy)
P.W.06 (with objection)
Exhibit-P-3 Postmortem report of
deceased Bablu Kumar
P.W.07
Exhibit-P-4 Writing of endorsement along
with signature of P.W. 08
P.W.08
Exhibit-P-5 Writing and signature of
Ashish Kumar Mishra of
Formal F.I.R.
P.W.08
Exhibit-P-6 Writing and signature of P.W.
08 on seizure list
P.W.08
Exhibit-P-7 Writing and signature of P.W.
08 on charge-sheet
P.W.08
Exhibit-P-8 Photocopy of Inquest Report
of deceased prepared by A.S.I.
Jitendra Tiwari
P.W.08
7. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short ‘CrPC’) in which they pleaded innocence.
8. The defence has produced two witnesses but no
documentary evidence has been produced. The description of the
defence witness are mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
Defence witnesses
Prosecution Name of witness Description

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
5/15
Witness No.
DW1 Bhola Prasad Other witness
DW2 Jitendra Chauhan Other witness
Findings of the learned Trial Court
9. Learned Trial Court examined the evidence of eight
prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-8) on the point of facts. PW-1
Lalan Kumar @ Lalan Chauhan, PW-2 Pankaj Kumar (brother of
the deceased) and PW-3 Laxminiya Devi are hearsay witnesses.
PW-4 Ranjis Chauhan is the informant, PW-5 Krishna Chauhan
and PW-6 Parshuram Kumar are Panch witnesses. PW-7 Dr. Shiv
Ranjan Kumar is Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem;
PW-8 Rajkumar is the S.H.O. of Meskaur Police Station who
recorded the fardbeyan and prepared the inquest report.
10. Learned Trial Court found from the evidences
brought on record and the law discussed that the prosecution
abjectly failed to establish it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, learned trial court acquitted respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
11. Learned counsel for appellant while
assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2024 submits that
the learned trial court has erred in appreciating the evidences and
committed grave error in acquitting the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
6/15
12. Learned counsel further submits that informant is the
eye witness to the occurrence. Learned Trial Court has not
considered the fact that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are F.I.R. named
accused and they had taken away the son of the
informant/appellant along with them.
13. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent
No. 4 (Sonu Kumar) was arrested by the police and he had
confessed his guilt stating that he and two others, Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 have killed the victim Bablu Kumar and concealed the
dead body in the wheat hust at Chorabara Paieen and on his
statement, the dead body of the victim Bablu Kumar was
recovered from the aforesaid Chourabara Paieen and the mobile of
the victim was also recovered from his possession, which itself
fortifies the case of the prosecution.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased
was seen for the last time with the aforesaid respondents.
Submissions on behalf of the State
15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has defended the impugned judgment. He further submits that the
prosecution witnesses are hearsay and panch witnesses, and none
of them are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. From the statements
of the prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
7/15
has submitted that no prosecution witness was present at the place
of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident. He further
submits that the prosecution has fully failed to bring forward
witnesses who could corroborate its case against the accused
persons.
Consideration
16. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused
the trial court’s records.
17. It appears that the case is based on the ‘last seen’
theory. It is stated that the son of the informant had been taken
away by the three named accused, namely, Pancha Chauhan
(respondent no. 2), Jiryodhan @ Duryodhan Chauhan (respondent
no. 3) and Sonu Kumar (respondent no. 4). Out of these three
accused persons, two of them, namely, Pancha Chauhan and
Jiryodhan Chauhan are the co-villagers of the informant. It is
stated that the accused came into the house of the informant at
6.30 P.M. on 01.06.2022 and had taken away the son of the
informant but thereafter, he did not return. On query made by the
informant, the accused persons told him that his son was left at his
house.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
8/15
18. This Court finds that the written information in this
regard was submitted to the Officer Incharge of Sirdalla
(Meshkaur) Police Station on 03.06.2022. On the basis of this
information, Sirdalla (Meskaur) P.S. Case No. 280 of 2022 was
registered under Section 364/34 IPC later on Sections 302 and
201/34 IPC were added.
19. In course of the trial, Lalan Kumar @ Lalan Chauhan
(cousin of the victim), Pankaj Kumar (PW 2) (brother of the
victim), Laxminia Devi (PW-3) (mother of the victim) have
deposed in their cross-examination on the same pattern. They have
stated that these accused persons had come to the house and had
taken away Bablu Kumar (deceased), whereafter, he did not return
and after the case was lodged, the accused persons were arrested
and the dead body was recovered. While P.W.-1 has stated that the
dead body was recovered at a place being Chorabara Ahar, straw
storage, P.W.-2 has stated that the accused persons had disclosed
that the dead body was lying adjacent to Chorabara Ahar. P.W.-3
has again stated that the accused persons disclosed that after
killing Bablu Kumar, they had concealed the dead body in straw
storage at the Ahar of Chorabara. The witnesses also disclosed that
the face of the deceased was burnt by petrol.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
9/15
20. We have noticed that the witnesses have not stated
about any prior enmity between the victim/deceased and the
accused persons. None of them had seen the occurrence and none
of the villagers had seen the victim/ deceased going with the
accused persons. Thus, for this reason, the defence suggested that
the accused persons have been implicated on the basis of mere
suspicion.
21. We have further noticed that the informant in this
case is the father of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief, he
has stated generally that on the date of occurrence and time of
occurrence, he was in his house, Sonu Kumar, Jiryodhan Chauhan
and Pancha Chauhan had come at 6.30 P.M. and they had taken
away his son Bablu Kumar on their motorcycle. This witness has,
however, stated in his cross-examination that his son had not
disclosed that where was he going. Two days after the son had
gone, he had made a complaint in the Police Station. He has stated
that after departure of his son, he had not received any mobile call
or threat call or demand of ransom on his mobile. He has also
stated that there was no enmity with the three named accused
persons. It is important to note that in paragraph ‘11’ of his
deposition, this witness has categorically stated that he had not
seen his son going outside his house because he was inside the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
10/15
house. From the deposition of P.W.-4 (the informant), this Court
finds that he is contradicting his own examination-in-chief and
cannot be put in the category of a wholly reliable witness.
22. We have further noticed that P.W.-4 has neither
disclosed the registration number of the mobile nor about the said
motorcycle which was seized by the I.O. on the identification of
the Police. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence but the
fact that the deceased had gone in the company of the accused
persons is not getting proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In
course of further cross-examination, P.W.-4 has stated that he had
only heard that the dead body of the deceased was concealed in the
straw/ storage, he had not seen the occurrence. Even at this point,
we find that there is no witness to say that in whose presence the
dead body had been found in the ‘Ahar’ near the ‘Paieen’ in
‘Chorabara’.
23. We have further noticed that in this case Krishna
Chauhan @ Krishna Singh (PW-5) is one of the inquest witnesses,
who has not identified his signature on the inquest report which
has been marked as Exhibit ‘P2’ but he has categorically stated
that police had only got the signature on the inquest report, he was
not present at the place where the dead body was found. He had

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
11/15
not seen the deceased on the date of occurrence alive visiting that
place.
24. Another witness in inquest report is Parshuram
Kumar (PW-6), who has though identified his signature, exhibited
as ‘P2/1’, but he has also categorically stated that the dead body
was not found in his presence. He had not seen the injuries on the
dead body. He has stated that the Dargoaji asked him to put his
signature and he did that. It is evident from the deposition of P.W.
5 and P.W. 6 that they are not witnesses to the recovery of the dead
body.
25. We have noticed from the evidence of the I.O. (PW-
8) that he claims to have recorded the confessional statement of
Sonu Kumar, in which Sonu Kumar disclosed the place where the
dead body was concealed but that part of his statement by which
Sonu Kumar had disclosed the place where the dead body was
concealed, has not been exhibited in evidence.
26. Further, we find that PW-8 has though stated that he
had gone with Sonu Kumar to Chorabara Ahar, Paieen and had
searched the dead body in the straw storage but PW-8 is
completely silent about the presence of any witness at the place of
recovery of the dead body.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
12/15
27. We, therefore, find that the dead body was recovered
at Chorabara, Paieen or the wheat straw storage has not been
proved by the prosecution.
28. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain
of chronological evidences are required to be proved. In Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984)
4 SCC 116, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in paragraphs ‘152’ and ‘153’ of the judgment as
follows:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied
upon by the High Court we would like to
cite a few decisions on the nature, character
and essential proof required in a criminal
case which rests on circumstantial evidence
alone. The most fundamental and basic
decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State
1
of Madhya Pradesh . This case has been
uniformly followed and applied by this
Court in a large number of later decisions
up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail
17
(Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
18
and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra . It
may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J.
1
has laid down in the Hanumant case : “It is
well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and
they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a
1. 1952 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129
17. (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55
18. AIR 1972 SC 656 : (1972) 4 SCC 625

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
13/15
chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused
can be said to be fully established: (1) the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction
between “may be proved” and “must be or
should be proved” as was held by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
19
Maharashtra where
the observations were made: [SCC para 19,
p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a Court can convict and the
mental distance between ‘may be’ and
‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.

29. We are aware that this is an appeal against the
acquittal. The principles governing an appeal against acquittal
19. (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033: 1973 Crl LJ 1783

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
14/15
have been discussed and reiterated in the case of H.D. Sundara and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 58. Paragraph
‘8’ of the said judgment reads as under:-
“ 8. In this appeal, we are called upon to
consider the legality and validity of the
1
impugned judgment rendered by the High
Court while deciding an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”).
The principles which govern the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal under Section
378CrPC can be summarised as follows:
“ 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
1 State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa , 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.101 of 2025 dt.03-09-2026
15/15
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.”
30. Having regard to the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements on this subject, finding that in this case, the
prosecution has not proved the motive and the chain of
chronological events by adducing wholly reliable evidences and
the case has not been duly established, we find no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court.
31. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
32. Let the copy of the judgment along with the trial
court’s record be sent down to learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Rakhi/Koustav
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026