Supreme Court sets aside judgement by Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi, acquits the appellant of all charges

In Anil Rai vs. The State of Bihar Through Home Secretary (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 6-page long order dated September 10, 2025, wherein, it acquitted the appellant of all the charges by setting aside the judgement dated December 14, 2016 by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Aditya Kumar Trivedi and Samarendra Pratap Singh which had confirmed the judgment dated December 1, 2011 and order dated December 2, 2011 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West ChamparanTrial Court. It allowed the appeal. 

The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Trivedi who had concluded:''34. Thus, from evidence as produced by the prosecution suggest that in all, therefore, the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution form a complete chain of event which does not permit any confusion or doubt with regard to the involvement of appellant in this heinous crime of murder. What makes this offence abhorrent is the fact that not only the murder was committed; the same was designed to be a case of suicide by the appellant thereby trying to mislead the Investigating Officer as well as the prosecution party as well as by such activity abused the process of law. Consequent thereupon, the appeal impugned sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appellant is under custody which he will continue till saturation of the sentence so inflicted.'' The Supreme Court has concluded that this conclusion was wrong. 

The appellant was the sole accused, who was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court had upheld the conviction and the sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

The case of the prosecution in a nutshell was that the deceased was upset by the illicit relation of the appellant with his sister-in-law. The appellant was also demanding a sum of Rs.1.50 Lakhs in order to facilitate his appointment under the Siksha Mithra Scheme, which the deceased was unable to provide. In a fit of rage, the appellant throttled her and thereafter set her on fire. PW-3, the brother-in-law of the deceased, was informed by the uncle of the appellant (not examined) that the deceased died due to burn injuries. Thereafter, he informed the same to PW-6, the father of the deceased. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, they found the deceased had died due to burn injuries. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was given. The Supreme Court observed: ''It seems to us that the said criminal complaint was not registered immediately, and subsequently, another one was registered. The appellant was not found present at the place of occurrence. Based upon the materials available, he was accordingly charged and convicted.''

The Court recorded that in total, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, while four exhibits have been marked. PWs-1, 7 and 8 were the witnesses, who reached the place of occurrence, upon hearing the uproar of the deceased. PW-1 did not find the door to be locked from the inside. However, PWs-7 and 8 have deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence, the door was locked from the inside, and, thereafter, they broke open the same and tried to rescue the deceased. However, she had died due to burn injuries. PW-16 is the medical officer, who conducted the postmortem. In his report, he stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia, as there were injuries sufficient enough to show that throttling had taken place, followed by post mortem of burn injuries. Both the trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant based upon these facts and materials available on record.

The appellant's counsel had vehemently contended that the conviction, was based on circumstantial evidence, in the absence of an adequate link, and unerringly pointing out to the appellant alone, he cannot be convicted merely based upon surmise. There is no evidence to show that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence. There was a significant contradiction between the evidence given by the ocular witness and the doctor’s medical evidence. As there was no evidence to implicate the appellant, particularly, in view of the evidence of PWs-7 and 8, who clearly deposed that the door was locked from inside, the appellant could not have been convicted. Strangely, in the case at hand, the Investigating Officer was not cross-examined by the appellant. This created a compelling logic for the acquittal of the appellant.

The counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that both the Courts had rightly taken into consideration the evidence of PWs-3, 6 and 16. Under those circumstances, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, operated, the burden of which had not been discharged by the appellant. Thus, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.

The Supreme Court observed: "To draw the presumption under Section 106 of the Act, the foundational facts will have to be proved. Unfortunately, such facts are lacking in the case at hand. Even the prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs-7 and 8 do not support the case projected by the prosecution. On the contrary, they clearly deposed to the fact that the door was locked from inside. They broke open the door, and thereafter, made an attempt to save the deceased. If that is the case, it can, at best, be a possible case of a suicide, warranting the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. Secondly, the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence has not been proved. We do not know why, many of the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence, have not chosen either to inform PW-6 or register a criminal complaint with the Police. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer has not been cross-examined. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the very genesis of FIR itself is in doubt."

Supreme Court concluded: "8. In our considered view, both the Courts have not taken note of the aforesaid facts, which clearly show that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order confirming the order of the Trial Court stands set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. 10. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. The appellant is already out on bail. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged."

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad led bench sets aside hasty judgment of acquittal passed bhy Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur

In Dulari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey observed: "The judicial conscience of this Court is totally disturbed on finding the kind of insensitiveness on the part of the investigating agency and the Public Prosecutor who were involved in this case. The trial court seems to have acted in haste in closing the prosecution evidence without taking care of it’s own order dated 08.11.2023 by which an explanation was called from the I.O." The judgement was delivered May 9, 2025.

It underlined that the Court "had a duty to find out the truth and for this purpose the Presiding Officer of the trial court was required to exhaust all such procedures which were available to him in law to secure the presence of the witnesses. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal in this case, having been passed in haste is liable to be set aside. 43. This Court, accordingly sets aside the impugned judgment. The trial court is directed to take steps to secure presence of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur shall ensure presence of the police officers who are charge-sheet witnesses of this case on the dates fixed in the matter."

The seven other respondents are respectively: Shravan Yadav, Haldhar Yadav, Kanki Devi, Lalan Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Sushil Yadav and Reeta Devi.

The Court concluded:"Respondent nos. 2 to 8 shall surrender in the trial court within four weeks from today. Since the respondent nos. 3 to 8 were on bail during trial, the learned trial court shall allow them to continue on bail. Respondent No. 2 was in custody at the time of delivery of impugned judgment, therefore, he would be taken into custody. It will be open to respondent no.2 to pray for bail in the trial court." 

The Court drew on Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, IN RE vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 598, the Supreme Court has provided the Draft Criminal Rules on Practice, 2021. The Rules are to be made part of the rules governing the criminal trials. Directions in this regard have been issued to all the High Courts and the State Governments. It also referred to Draft Criminal Rules on Practice, 2021.

The prosecution case was based on the written application of the mother of the deceased (PW-2) addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur in which she has stated that she had got her daughter married to Shravan Yadav, resident of Bhagalpur in the year 2012 and out of the wedlock, her daughter has got two children. After marriage, her daughter’s husband Shravan Yadav, father-in-law Haldhar Yadav, mother-in-law Kanki Devi, devar Lalan Yadav and Sunil Yadav, Sushil Yadav and Reeta Devi were continuously torturing and beating her daughter for Rupees One Lakh and cow due to which her daughter used to come to her alleged that six months ago, upon compromise with the husband of her daughter and her in-laws showing good faith, the informant allowed her daughter to go to her sasural and also gave two cows worth Rs.60,000/-, but again the in-laws started assaulting her daughter and harassed her. On 22.07.2018, the informant came to know that her daughter has been murdered by her husband and in- laws, they have concealed the dead body and ran away after locking their house. The informant alleged that she gave written complaint in Goradih Police Station but no action was being taken. This written application was sent to the Officer Incharge of Goradih Police Station to ensure proper action as per law. On being receipt of this written application, a case dated August 2, 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 304B/201/34 IPC at Jagdishpur (Goradih) Police Station. 

After investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet dated November 28, 2018 against Sushil Yadav (respondent no. 7) keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated December 13, 2018. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on March 26, 2019 in which Yadav to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC was framed vide order dated April 30, 2019. Thereafter, police submitted supplementary chargesheet dated May 15, 2019 against Reeta Devi (Respondent no. 8) keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate finding prima-facie material against her for the offences under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated 21.05.2019 kept the case for supply of police paper. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on June 19, 2019 in which charges were explained to accused Reeta Devi to which she denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges under Sections 304B/120B/201/34 IPC was framed by order dated February 20, 2020. 

Thereafter, police submitted another supplementary chargesheet dated December 5, 2019 against Shravan Yadav (Respondent No. 2), Lalan Yadav (Respondent No. 5), Sunil Yadav (Respondent No. 6), Haldhar Yadav (Respondent No. 3), Kanki Devi (Respondent No. 4). After receiving this chargesheet, Magistrate finding prima-facie material against these accused persons for the offences under Sections 304(B)/201/120(B)/34 IPC vide order dated December 23, 2019 kept the case for supply of police paper. After commitment, Session Trial was registered on March 15, 2021 in which charges were explained to accused persons to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges have been framed against Shravan Yadav, Haldhar Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Kanki Devi and Sunil Yadav vide order dated December 1, 2021 under Sections 304(B)/34, 201 and 120(B) IPC. Prio to September 21, 2022, PW-1 and PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined and discharged. In Session Trial No. 1191 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been examined on May 7, 2022, she has been described as PW-3 but there is no PW-1 and PW-2.

By order dated September 21, 2022, Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 and Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were amalgamated with Session Trial No. 119 of 2019. Prior to September 21, 2022, PW-1 and PW-2 of Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2021 were already examined and discharged. In Sessions Trail No. 119 of 2019, Ena Devi (PW-1) had been examined prior to passing of the order of amalgamation. Further, we find from the ordersheet of Sessions Trial No. 339 of 2019 that in the said trial Ena Devi has been examined on May 7, 2022, she has been described as PW-3 but there is no PW-1 and PW-2.

After analysing the evidences available on the record, trial court found that in the written application, the informant alleged that her daughter was harassed by her in-laws for dowry due to which her daughter many times came to naiher but there is no evidence of any witness to corroborate this allegation. The trial court found that there is no application regarding beating for dowry on record reported to any authority. The trial court further found from the evidence of the defence witnesses that accused Reeta Devi was married and was living in her sasural with her husband and all the brothers of the husband of the deceased were also living separately. The trial court observed that it seems that the informant has tried to drag the entire family of in-laws of her daughter in the dowry case due to said unfortunate incident. The trial court found that the body of the deceased was recovered from river after seven days.The trial court found that PW-2 deposed that there was black mark on neck of her daughter but this fact has not been supported by her husband (PW-3). Learned trial court further found that Post mortem report shows that there was no external injury and it indicates the presence of Celphos in the visceral fluid of the deceased but it does not show that the said Celphos was forcefully administered to the deceased. 

The trial court observed that even if for the argument sake, it is presumed that Celphos was forcefully administered to the deceased and the body was thrown in the river then also there is not a single eye witness to depose from the prosecution side that they have seen the accused persons throwing the dead body in the river. The trial court after considering all the materials found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased was harassed soon before her death for demand of dowry and due to non-fullfilment of said demand, the deceased was killed by the accused. The trial court found that the prosecution is unable to prove the charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC, hence, acquitted the accused persons-respondent nos. 2 to 8. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that the trial court has erroneously closed the evidence without examining the four charge-sheet witnesses including the Investigating Officer of this case and the Officer-in-Charge of Sanhaula Police Station. He submitted that there were ample materials before the trial court to held the respondent nos. 2 to 8 guilty but has erroneously acquitted them from the charges levelled against them without examining all the chargesheet witnesses.

The State defended the impugned judgment but agreed that the trial court closed the evidence without examining the four chargesheet witnesses. 

The Court referred to the discussion on Section 311 CrPC in the case of V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 661.The judgment reads: “14. The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion”. 15. The principles related to the exercise of the power under Section 311 CrPC have been well settled by this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.2: (SCC p. 141, para 17). “17. Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing the learned Special Judge to examine Smt Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High Court did not examine the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge as to why it was not necessary to examine her as a court witness and has given the impugned direction without assigning any reason.”

The case of V.N. Patil was under Sections 304B and 302 IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said case Public Prosecutor had filed an application under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC which was allowed by the learned trial court. The High Court upset the order of the trial court summoning the witnesses but the Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial court.

In its judgement, the High Court observed that in the Dulari Devi case, "the Public Prosecutor who conducted the case at Bhagalpur was not acting with due diligence and care. The records speak for themselves. No summon was issued to the other prosecution witnesses, no explanation came from the two police personnel who were charge-sheet witnesses, even Senior Superintendent of Police did not act on receipt of the letter from the court. In fact the FIR itself was registered after the informant made a complaint to the Dy.SP." The judgement was authored by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.

Notably, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad is one of the five members of the High Court's Committee to consider Draft Criminal Court Rules. The other members are: Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Rajiv Roy, Sunil Dutta Mishra and Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh. It is one ofthe 43 committees of the High Court.