Patna High Court
Jogindra Rai @ Jogindra Yadav @ Yogendra … vs The State Of Bihar on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.521 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2017 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District-
Gopalganj
======================================================
JOGINDRA RAI @ JOGINDRA YADAV @ YOGENDRA RAY Son of Late
Raghunath Ray @ Raghu Nath Yadav Resident of village - Allepur, P.S. -
Baikunthpur, Distt. - Gopalganj
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manoj Mahto Son of Jhulan Mahto @ Bhoolan Mahto Resident of village -
Allepur, P.S. - Baikunthpur, Distt. - Gopalganj
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Sachin Raj, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR)
Date : 26-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal dated 20.12.2022 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-5th, Gopalganj, (hereinafter referred to
as the 'learned trial court') in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2018,
arising out of Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017. By the
impugned judgment under appeal, the accused-respondent no. 2,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
2/18
who was facing trial for the charges under Sections 302, 201/34 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), has been acquitted.
Prosecution Case
3. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant,
Jogindra Rai (PW-3), Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2017 dated
19.03.2017
, was registered at 21:30 hours, under Sections 302,
201/34 IPC. In his fard-beyan, the informant has alleged that he
works at Faridabad and on 01.03.2017 he had gone to Faridabad
from his house. On 16.03.2017, he received a phone call to come
to his home as his wife was ill and he came back to his home in the
evening of 18.03.2017. On reaching his home, he came to know
that his younger daughter, aged about 14 years, was not at home
and was missing. On enquiry from his wife, Urmila Devi, she told
that their daughter is missing from house from the night of
15.03.2017, whom they were searching. On 19.03.2018, at about
05:00 PM, he heard a hulla that a dead body of a girl is in the well
situated in the field of Ajay Singh. On getting the information, the
informant went to the well and saw massive crowd gathered there
and the dead body of his daughter was lying in the well. Upon
seeing the dead body, the informant lost his consciousness and was
brought to the village by the co-villagers. His wife told him that in
course of search of their daughter, wives of Madan Rai and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
3/18
Lalbabu Rai had abused her. Manoj Mahto (respondent No.2), a
co-villager, used to roam around his house and he suspects that his
daughter has been killed by Manoj Mahto and the wives of Madan
Rai and Lalbabu Rai and the dead body was disposed of in the
well.
4. On completion of the investigation, the police
submitted the charge-sheet No.134 of 2017 on 27.07.2017 against
Manoj Mahto for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and
201/34 IPC. Vide order dated 15.03.2018, cognizance was taken of
the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 IPC by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. Since the offences were
exclusively triable by the Sessions court, the case was committed
to the court of Sessions by order dated 13.04.2018, where Sessions
Trial No. 225 of 2018 was registered on 25.04.2018.
5. Charges were read over and explained to the
respondent No.2 in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 12.07.2018,
charges were framed under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as five witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences.
The names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in tabular form:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
4/18List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Pramohan Rai
PW-2 Urmila Devi
PW-3 Yogendra Rai
(Informant)
PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
PW-5 Gautam Kumar Tiwary
(IO)List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Signature of PW 1 on the
Inquest Report
Exhibit ‘2’ Signature of the Doctor (PW
4) on the post mortem Report
Exhibit Signature of the Dr. A.K.
‘2/1’ Chaudhary on the post
mortem Report
Exhibit Signature of the Dr. R.K.
‘2/2’ Singh on the post mortem
Report
Exhibit ‘3’ Fard-beyan
Exhibit ‘4’ FIR
Exhibit ‘5’ Signature of SI Indrajit on
formal FIR
Exhbit ‘6’ Signature and handwriting of
SI Indrajit on Inquest Report
7. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent no. 2 was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC on 24.08.2021. He took a
plea that he is innocent. The defence also examined one witness,
namely, Rajendra Yadav (DW 1). However, no documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
5/18
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
8. Learned trial court, upon analyzing the evidences and
the depositions of the prosecution witnesses qua the charges
levelled against respondent No. 2 and after considering all the
facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against
respondent no. 2 beyond all reasonable doubts and held respondent
no. 2 not guilty of the charges framed against him. Accordingly,
respondent No.2 was acquitted of the charges framed under
Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and was discharged from the
liabilities of his bail bonds.
Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant
9. It is submitted that the learned trial court has not
properly appreciated the evidences adduced during the course of
trial and thereby reached to a wrong finding and acquitted the
respondent No.2. The acquittal of the respondent No. 2 is
otherwise unjustified as the learned trial court has acted on the
conjectures and surmises in reaching a conclusion that nothing
incriminating has come on the record against the respondent No.2
and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
6/18
Submissions on behalf of the State
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has submitted that the learned trial court has duly considered every
aspect of the matter thread bare and rightly acquitted the
respondent No. 2. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment.
Consideration
11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered
the materials on record. This Court would once again analyse the
evidences available on the record.
12. PW 1, Pramohan Rai, in his examination-in-chief,
has deposed that the occurrence took place nearly one and a half
years ago, on 15.03.2017, at about 07:00 PM, the victim, who is
her niece, went missing and on search no trace of her could be
found. The father of the victim was informed, who came home on
18.03.2017 and he also searched for her. On 19.03.2017, they
came to know that a dead body has been found in the well in the
field of Ajay Singh, the dead body was recovered in the presence
of police, which was that of her niece. Knife marks were there on
the person of the dead body, the neck was severed, eyes were
blindfolded and leg was broken. He has further deposed that
respondent No.2, who resides in the neighborhood, used to come
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
7/18
to his sister-in-law, Meena Devi. He has deposed that about eight
days before the occurrence, at about 08:00 PM, the victim told him
that Meena Devi has illicit relation with Manoj, but he asked her to
leave saying that he will look into it. He told Meena Devi to
restrain herself and not to visit to the house of anybody, upon
which Meena Devi said that the respondent No.2 used to meet her
house-hold expenses and because of this respondent No.2, Meena
Devi, Urmila Devi and Sunaina Devi killed the victim. He has
deposed that the inquest report was prepared in his presence and he
had put his signature on the same, which came to be marked as
Exhibit-1. He identified the respondent No.2 present in the court
and claimed to identify rest of the accused on seeing them.
13. In his cross-examination, PW 1 deposed that he
came to know about the disappearance of the victim on the next
date so also his brother came to know about the disappearance of
the victim after one day. He has deposed that respondent No.2 used
to come to the house of Meena Devi and he came to know about
their affair through the victim. The well from where the dead body
was recovered was dry one. The dead body was recovered after
three days and he had informed to the police, who arrived within
half an hour. He has deposed that the victim used to go out with
Meena Devi and Urmila Devi, but he did not see her going on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
8/18
day she disappeared. He denied that he had given evidence on
being asked by his brother and sister-in-law and they have
implicated the respondent No.2 in a false case.
14. PW 2, Urmila Devi, is the mother of the victim, who
has deposed in her examination-in-chief that the occurrence took
place on 15.03.2017. Her daughter was talking with Nanhki Devi
at about 07:00 PM and Meena Devi, Urmila Devi and Sunaina
Devi were standing there. Meena Devi was having illicit relation
with the respondent No.2. When she did not find her daughter in
the house, she enquired from Meena Devi, upon which Meena
Devi started abusing her. PW 2 told her Devar about it, but the
victim could not be traced. She has also deposed that her husband,
who resided outside, was informed and he came and also searched
for the victim, but could not get any clue. Two days thereafter, she
came to know that a dead body has been found in a well near the
house of Uday Singh, police came and the dead body was
recovered, which was that of the victim and the mouth and hands
of the dead body was tied and the neck was severed. She has
deposed that the occurrence has been committed by the respondent
No.2, Meena Devi, Nanhki Devi and Urmila Devi since the victim
had seen the illicit relation of the respondent No.2 and Meena Devi
and the dead body of the victim was dumped in the well to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
9/18
disappear the evidence. She identified the respondent No.2 who
was present in the court.
15. In her cross-examination, PW 2 deposed that Meena
Devi is her sister-in-law (dayadin) and their houses are separate,
but the walls are joint. She deposed that Meena and Nanhki called
the victim to come to which PW 2 objected, however, when PW 2
slept, they took the victim along. First of all PW 2 searched for the
victim in the neighbourhood and thereafter with her devar for two-
three days, the dead body was recovered on 19th. When the victim
could not be traced, PW 2 had gone to the house of Meena Devi,
who started quarreling and abused her. When the victim could not
be found for two days, PW 2 informed her husband on phone, who
came on 18th, who also vigorously searched for her and when they
were going to the police station, in the meantime, they heard that a
dead body had been found in a well. Police recovered the dead
body from the well and PW 2 and her husband both became
unconscious on seeing the dead body. She could not see who
brought them home. She deposed that her statement was recorded
on the date of recovery of the body, again, she deposed that her
statement was recorded on the next date. She has deposed that she
had no dispute with the respondent No.2 nor with Meena Devi,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
10/18
again, she deposed that she has enmity because of the illicit
relationship. She denied that she has given false evidence.
16. PW 3, Yogendra Rai, who is the informant and the
father of the victim, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the
occurrence took place nearly over two years back on 15.03.2017 in
the night, when he was in Delhi. He had gone to Delhi nearly 15
days before the occurrence. On 16.03.2017, his wife informed that
the victim was missing, whereupon he reached his home on
18.03.2017 and searched for the victim. He searched for the victim
till 03:00-04:00 PM on 19.03.2017 and when she could not be
found, he was going to the police station and on the way he saw
large number of people gathered at the well of Ajay Singh, he too
went there and saw the dead body of the victim in the well. Police
was informed and on arrival they recovered the dead body, which
was of his daughter. Both hands bore knife marks, finger was
severed, leg was broken and eye was gouged and blindfolded and
the neck was cut. He has further deposed that his wife informed
her that the victim witnessed the illicit relationship between Manoj
and Meena and had told Meena to mend herself else she will
inform the Uncle about it. The victim had also told the respondent
No.2 that why does he use to come to the house of her aunt. The
wife of PW 3 informed him that on 15.03.2017 at about 07:00-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
11/18
08:00 PM Nanhki Devi was talking to victim and Meena Devi was
standing there, thereafter they had taken away the victim. Two
days earlier to the occurrence, they had taken her away, but the
victim had returned, however, when they took her away on
15.03.2017, the victim did not return. When the wife of PW 3 went
to the house of Nanhki Devi and asked about the victim, then
Urmila Devi, Sunaina Devi, Meena Devi and wife of Rajesh Rai
abused and assaulted her and said that she had fled away. He has
also deposed that the accused persons are threatening him to
withdraw the case. He has deposed that the police had recorded his
statement, which was read over to him and he had put his LTI on
it.
17. In his cross-examination PW 3 has deposed that the
occurrence did not take place in his presence, he has deposed
before the Court as was disclosed to him by his wife. He denied
that whatever has been told by his wife is false and that he has
given false evidence in the case.
18. PW 4, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, who was posted as
Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj on 20.03.2017, was
the member of the medical board which had conducted the
postmortem examination of the dead body of the victim. He has
found following injuries on the dead body of the victim: –
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
12/18“On external examination:-
1- Rigor mortis dis-appearing from all four
limbs.
II-Eyes closed, mouth closed, ears and
nose NAD, external genitalia NAD.
III- Skin wrinkled all over (washerman
skin)
IV- Incised wound over front and side of
neck 7″X3″ size with trachea, oesophagus, great
vessels and strap muscles of neck divided.
V. Incised wound over right head
4"X1/2"Xmuscle deep.
On dissection:-
1-Skull intact, brain pale and intact,
trachea divided, great vessels divided, oesophagus
divided.
II- Thoracic cage intact, lungs pale and
intact, both chambers of hearts empty.
III- All abdominal visceras pale and intact,
stomach contained gas, uterus normal size, non-
gravid. Urinary bladder empty.
Time since death- Within 24 to 48 hours.
Cause of death- Due to shock as a result of
haemorrhage caused due to incised wound on neck
inflicted by sharp cutting object.”
He identified his signature on the postmortem report,
which was marked as Ext-2 and the signatures of Dr. A.K.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
13/18
Chaudhary and Dr. R.K. Singh, which were marked as Ext- 2/1
and 2/2.
19. In his cross-examination, PW 4 denied that he had
not mentioned the cause of death. He has deposed that he
mentioned the age of injury and the condition of clothing of the
deceased as per inquest. He denied that the victim died by
drowning.
20. PW 5, Gautam Kumar Tiwary, the IO, has deposed in
his examination-in-chief that he took over the charge of
investigation on registration of the FIR and recorded the re-
statement of the informant in which he supported the occurrence
and informed that Meena Devi, who is wife of his younger brother,
was having illicit relation with Manoj Mahto and the victim saw
them and told that she will tell her uncle and because of this the
occurrence took place. PW 5 also deposed that he inspected the
place of occurrence and had recorded the statements of Urmila
Devi and Pramohan Rai who supported the illicit relation of the
respondent No.2 with Meena Devi. PW 5 has deposed that he was
informed by the spy that the deceased was having affair with a
person of the village. He had also sent CDRs to the technical cell.
Upon finding the case to be true, he submitted the charge-sheet.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
14/18
21. In his cross-examination, PW 5 has deposed that he
had not taken the statements of other persons except Yogendra Rai,
Urmila Devi and Pramohan Rai. He could not find any
independent witness near the well from where the dead body of the
deceased was recovered. He could not find any detail in the CDR
of any call being made to Meena Devi by the respondent No.2 or
the vice-versa nor he recorded the statement of Meena Devi. He
denied that the investigation was faulty.
22. The defence has also examined one witness, namely,
Rajendra Yadav (DW 1), who is the husband of Meena Devi. He
has mainly deposed in his examination-in-chief that the conduct of
his wife Meena Devi is good and she does not have any wrong
relation with Manoj Mahto. He has further deposed that because of
the land dispute, his brother has implicated them in a false case to
malign their image.
23. In his cross-examination DW 1 has deposed that the
victim went missing on 15.03.2017 and on 19.03.2017 her dead
body was recovered from the well of Ajay Singh. Pramohan Rai is
his brother and denied that Pramohan Rai had told that the victim
had told him about the relationship between Manoj and Meena
Devi and because of which Manoj kidnapped the victim and killed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
15/18
her in connivance with the other accused persons. He denied that
he was giving false evidence at the behest of the accused persons.
24. It appears that the learned trial court, having
considered the materials available on the record and the evidence
adduced, both oral and documentary, arrived at the conclusion that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the
accused beyond the shadow of doubt and acquitted respondent
No.2 of the charges levelled against him.
25. We have gathered from the evidences available on
the record that the whole prosecution case is based on a mere
suspicion. Non one had seen the victim in the company of the
accused. There is no witness to say that the accused-respondent
No.2 was roaming around the house of the informant and Meena
Devi. The IO has not found any mobile phone connection between
Meena Devi and respondent No.2. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, as it is, we are of the opinion that the chain of
criminological events is not established.
26. In view of the materials on record, the discussions
aforementioned and the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses
and the defence witness, we are of the view that no perversity or
infirmity persists in the impugned judgment warranting
interference by this Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
16/18
27. We are reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein their Lordships have laid
down the principles governing an appeal against acquittal.
Paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra)
is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon
to consider the legality and validity of the
impugned judgment1 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 378
CrPC can be summarized 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 re-appreciate 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;
1. Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
17/18
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 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.”
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D.
Sundara (supra) has categorically held that the appellate court can
interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can 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.
In the present case, no other conclusion is possible, other than the
one taken by the learned trial court.
29. In result, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
30. This appeal has no merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.
31. We regret it is one of those cases in which the police
investigation remained disappointing. The IO did not examine any
independent witness to establish the circumstances leading to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.521 of 2023 dt.26-02-2026
18/18
occurrence. Meena Devi was not interrogated. In the name of
investigation only some formalities were done.
32. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court’s record be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 16.03.2026. Transmission Date 16.03.2026.